dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 2 2 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland SJcurity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immi gration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave. , N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuanr to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www .uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the lates t information on fee, filing 
location , and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~~:;:;~~trative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC !SION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a competitive runner, seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in 
athletics, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A), which makes visas available to individuals who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in their field through extensive documentation.
1 
The director determined that the petitioner 
had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires 
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. The director found that the petitioner's evidence had met only two of the ten regulatory 
criteria, the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iii). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. The petitioner asserts that she meets the category of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). In addition, with regard to the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the petitioner asserts that she submitted "comparable evidence of membership in 
associations" pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not established her 
eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted 
evidence demonstrating her sustained national or international acclaim as a competitive runner. 
See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See 
Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we will 
dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shaH first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the 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 or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
1 
According to information on the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) and an entry stamp in 
the petitioner's passport, she was last admitted to the United States on September 11, 2013, as a B-2 
nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petltwner can 
demonstrate sustained acclaim and the recognition of her achievements in the field through evidence of 
a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then she must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the 
ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (91h Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The evidence supports the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought) which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
2 
We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner asserts that she meets or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!ON 
Page 4 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted documentary evidence of her membership on the 01 ympic team representing 
_ at the Olympic Games in In addition, the petitioner submitted 
documentation reflecting that she represented at the On 
appeal, the petitioner asserts that her election to Olympic team should be considered as 
comparable evidence for this criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). A review 
of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence 
establishing that her Olympic team membership is of the same caliber of evidence as that required by 
the regulation, and the director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn 3 Accordingly, the 
petitioner has established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The evidence supports the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic. athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of this criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." Here, the evidence 
must rise to the level of original athletic contributions "of major significance in the field." The 
phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastricl1 
Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 
619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The director found that the petitioner had not established that her contributions as a competitive 
runner were both original and of major significance in the field. On appeal, the petitioner asserts 
that the evidence she submitted for the membership criterion also meets this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner's membership on teams representing Ethiopia in international competition was 
previously addressed under the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Evidence relating to 
or even meeting the membership criterion is not presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this 
criterion. The regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate 
criteria exist for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements and original 
contributions of major significance, users clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. 
3 Although an athletic team is not strictly speaking an "association," it is nonetheless equally true that an athlete 
can earn a place on a national or an Olympic team through rigorous competition which separates the very best 
from the great majority of participants in a given sport. Therefore, an athlete's membership on an Olympic team 
or a major national team such as a World Cup soccer team may serve as comparable evidence to meet this 
criterion as such teams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous selection process. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
Regardless, there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's membership on the 
Olympic team in and the national team at the Championships has affected the 
field in a major way, has widely influenced other competitive runners, or otherwise constitutes 
original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Without additional, specific evidence showing that 
the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, has substantially impacted her sport, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance in the field, the petitioner 
has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of 
the ten regulatory criteria. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
The next step is a final merits determination that considers all of the 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[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(i), there is 
no evidence showing that the petitioner has received any nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence as a competitive runner after 2009. In addition, with regard to the 
documentary evidence submitted for the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(ii), there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner has competed as a member of the Olympic team 
subsequent to Lastly, with respect to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iii), the petitioner has 
not submitted any qualifying published material about herself in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media dated after . The statute and regulations require the petitioner 
to demonstrate "sustained" national or international acclaim as an athlete. See Section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The submitted evidence does not include 
documentation of any athletic achievements since 2009 that are commensurate with sustained national 
or international acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted her biographical entry from Wikipedia (accessed on February 24, 2014), but 
the author of the material was not identified. Furthermore, there are no assurances about the 
reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site. 4 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael 
4 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we assign little evidentiary weight to 
information for which Wikipedia is the source. Nevertheless, the 2014 information submitted from 
Wikipedia states that the petitioner's "last competitive outing" was in 
A review of the record does not reflect any achievements from until the 
Form 1-140 was filed in March 2014 that are indicative of the petitioner's sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of her field. The submitted evidence, in the aggregate, is not 
sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim in her sport. 
Again, we maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States 
Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d at 145. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirement of meeting three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3), the documentation submitted in support of the petition does not 
establish that the petitioner has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim as a 
competitive runner. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an 
Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily 
been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or 
reliable information . . .. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. 
The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone 
whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See hlirUL~n.~yLt~l.p~Qi.a .o rgLwiki/Wikipe~tl.c!;.Q§!le.mJ diss,:j;t]m~.r:, accessed on July 8, 2015, copy incorporated 
into the record of proceeding.