dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-B-Z-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 22, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a kickboxer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § ll53(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits documentation and a 
brief stating that he meets at least three criteria. 1 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. --Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any ofthe following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -An alien is described in this subparagraph 
if-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
1 In addition, the Petitioner requested, and we granted, an extension of time to provide additional documentation. As of 
the date of this decision, however, we have received nothing further. Accordingly, the record is considered complete as 
it now stands. 
Matter of R-B-Z-
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, 
published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), a.ff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the 
individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a kickboxer who has competed in tournaments around the world. Because the 
Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the regulatory 
criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
2 
(b)(6)
J1atter of R-B-Z-
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and the leading or critical role c~iterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)? We 
have reviewed all of the evidence in the record of proceedings, and it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his awards, certificates, belts, and titles from the 
the the 
the the and the 
meet this criterion. The plain language of the 
regulation requires the Petitioner's prizes or awards to be nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence. Although he presents background information regarding the sporting associations , the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that his prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field. 
For instance, the Petitioner submitted a certificate reflecting that he won gold at the 2012 
in Florida. While he presented screenshots regarding 
history, the Petitioner did not provide evidence of publicity for the award or other documentation 
demonstrating that his gold award at this event is considered to be nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in kickboxing. We are not persuaded that all awards from events under 
the auspices of the above kickboxing associations are nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in the field. The submission of evidence reflecting his receipt of awards and regarding 
background information of the awarding entities is insufficient to meet the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion without documentation showing the awards' national or international recognition 
in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the fieldfor which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievetnents of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfiefds. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion for the ·first time on appeal based on his 
memberships with and Specifically, the Petitioner indicates that "[a]lthough, 
these organizations do not formally list their membership requirements on their websites, evidently , 
in order to compete for such a lengthy period of time with these reputable organizations, one must 
possess outstanding achievements." 
2 Although he previously claimed eligibility for the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), on 
appeal the Petitioner does not contest the Director's finding, offer further arguments, or submit additional evidence for 
this criterion, nor does the record support a finding that he meets it. Accordingly, we will no~ address this criterion in 
this decision. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-B-Z-
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition for 
membership. Regarding and the Petitioner submits letters confirming his memberships 
and competitions, but they do not identify the membership requirements for the respective 
associations. Furthermore , according to screenshots offered by the Petitioner, "[t]he 
is open to everybody. " This statement does not indicate that the association requires outstanding 
achievements as a necessary stipulation. Without supporting evidence reflecting the membership 
requirements, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's contention that 
competing for a length of time 
demonstrates outstanding achievements. The Petitioner has not established that his membership 
with and are based on his outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts, rather than eligibility for membership based on his professional status as a 
kickboxer. 
Moreover, the Petitioner refers to a letter from president of who 
stated that "[a]ll Kickboxing Clubs in Lebanon recognized by the 
(About Club[s]) are member[s] in and their students attend the tournaments." 
letter indicates that clubs are members of rather than individuals. Therefore , the 
Petitioner has not established that he is a member of Regardless, the automatic membership 
in based on membership with a recognized kickboxing club is not representative of 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the jieldfor which class~fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates eligibility for this criterion based· on articles posted on the 
following websites: and 
In addition, the Petitioner submits articles from and 
In order for published material to meet this criterion , it must be about the 
Petitioner, include the title, date, and author of the material, and be published in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
Regarding and the screenshots 
are essentially the same article with minor variations. Although the screenshots are about the 
Petitioner relating to his work as kickboxer, they do not contain the author of the material as required 
by the regulation. In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the websites are major media. 
While the Petitioner submitted information regarding it relates to the printed 
publication rather than the website. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-B-Z-
Pertaining to the screenshot from it does not reflect material about the Petitioner. 
Instead, the screenshot is about participating in a championship in Greece in which the 
Petitioner is mentioned once as being one of several participants. Articles that are not about the 
petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV -820-
ECR-RJJ at * 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not 
about the actor) . Moreover, Petitioner did not include the author of the screenshot. ' 
Similarly, the article in the is about partiCipating in an event in 
Florida, and the Petitioner is mentioned one time along with other members as being part of 
the delegation. The article is not about the Petitioner relating to his work consistent with the plain 
language ofthis regulatory criterion. Further, the Petitioner did not include the author of the article. 
Finally, a review of the article reflects published material about the Petitioner 
relating to his work. The Petitioner, however, did not show that the newsletter is a professional or 
major trade publication or other major media; rather it appears to be a locally distributed publication. 
Without evidence establishing published material about him relating to his work in professional or 
major trade publication or other major media, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 1-vork ()( 
others in the same or an alliedfield of spec(jication for which class(jication is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion on appeal. The record contains evidence reflecting 
that the Petitioner has served as a judge at the and the 
As such, the Petitioner demonstrated that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner did not previously claim eligibility for this criterion . On appeal, the Petitioner 
contends that he performed in a leading and critical role for the based on "competing for the 
Lebanese national title for many years and [winning] a record competitions over that time." He 
refers to previously discussed letter indicating that the Petitioner has attended 
championships, tournaments, and training and referee seminars. In addition, stated 
that there is a new board of directors elected every 4 years that includes a president, two vice 
presidents, general secretary, treasurer, and accountant. 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself. The Petitioner has not shown how his 
role as a competitor is reflective of a leading role for 
indicated where his position fits in the overall hierarchy of 
5 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not 
The record ,does not include 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-B-Z-
evidence, for example, differentiating his role as a competitor from the roles of the other competitors 
or members of the board of directors. 
Furthermore, a critical role is one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of 
the organization or establishment. Although letter refers to the Petitioner as "one of 
our famous Champions," the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his personal successes impacted 
standing in the field. For instance, the Petitioner did not show that garnered attention 
based on his tournament results. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he performed in 
a critical role for 
Finally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the organization 
or establishment to have a distinguished reputation. The record does not include sufficient evidence 
to establish that enjoys a distinguished reputation. The submitted evidence, for example, does 
not discuss reputation in the kickboxing field or reference any awards or accolades. For 
these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating his eligibility under this 
criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record only satisfies one of the regulatory criteria. As a result, the Petitioner 
has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that 
meet at least three ofthe ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of evidence in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we 
need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the 
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not 
established the level of expertise 
required for the classification sought. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he is an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, he has not established 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofR-B-Z-, ID# 201865 (AAO Feb. 22, 2017) 
6