dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

MATTER OF M-A-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 30, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a taekwondo athlete, 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. 
§ 1 l 53(b )(1 )(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 of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not shown that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award or, in the alternative, that she met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she has received a major 
internationally recognized award and that she meets at least four of the initial evidentiary criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes vi~ available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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, 
(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. 
Matter of M-A-R-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as t;lwards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether 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. See Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a taekwondo athlete who indicates that she intends to work as a taekwondo 
instructor. In the Director's request for evidence (RFE), he stated that the Petitioner must submit 
evidence demonstrating that she qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability in coaching. In 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner in_dicated that she is applying for classification as an athlete, not 
as a coach. Accordingly, our decision will evaluate the Petitioner's expertise as a taekwondo athlete. 
The Director found that the Petitioner has not established that she has received a major, 
internationally recognized prize or award under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that the evidence in the 
record demonstrates that she only meets two of the ten alternate criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x), of which she must meet at least three. Specifically, the Director held that she only met the 
criteria for awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and published material under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the following: (1) that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award; and (2) that she meets these alternate criteria: awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and 
leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). For the reasons discussed below, we conclude 
that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements for an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
2 
.
Matter of M-A-R-
A. Major International Award 
We find that the Petitioner has not established that she has earned a one-time achievement of a major 
internationally recognized award under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) . This regulation is consistent with the 
legislative history of section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(b )(I )(A), stating that a one­
time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award . See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House 
Report specifically cited to the_ Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement. 
Here, the record reflects that the Petitioner competed in the in 2004 and 2008, and that she 
received a fifth place ranking in 2004. The record contains a Certificate of Participation from the 
recognizing her for participating in the 2004 The 
record also includes similar certificates from the president of the 
for 2004 and 2008 with a separate document indicating she received 5th Place at the 2004 
These documents do not constitute an award to meet this requirement. A certificate of participation 
and a fifth place ranking indicate that she competed at these events, but they do not represent an 
actual award. 
The Petitioner states that the in which she won a silver medal, is the second largest 
multi-sport event after the However, she has not submitted documentation to 
substantiate this claim or to establish that a medal received at the would constitute a 
major international award . Therefore , the evidence in the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner has earned a major internationally recognized award. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
We conclude that the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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). 
The Director held that the Petitioner met this criterion . The record contains evidence indicating that 
the Petitioner won gold medals in the in 2001, as well as the 
in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2009, among other awards. We agree that 
this demonstrates that the Petitioner meets this 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 . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion due to her membership in the 
3 
.
Matter of M-A-R-
She submits a certification from the which states that she 
has been a member of this association from 2002 to 2012. This certification also states that the 
Petitioner is affiliated with the ======= the the 
and the However, the record does 
not contain evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner is a member of these organizations and does 
not provide the membership requirements for the or .these other organizations. The Petitioner 
provides a page from the website about the organization, which states that "it was established· 
in the mid-70s to propagate the Korean martial art sport in the country." This document states that 
the manages the national team, among other Taekwondo groups, but it does not indicate what is 
required for membership in the association or the national team. 
Counsel states that the national team's members "are the best of the best Taekwondo practitioners 
who participate in different national and international tournaments and/or competitions all over the 
world." Counsel further states that the · the CEO of the 1s an 
expert in the field of Taekwondo and that he requires outstanding achievement of all members of the 
Assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 
534 n.2 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). 
Counsel's statements must be substantiated in the record with independent evidence. The Petitioner 
must show that she meets every element of a given criterion, including that she is a member of a 
team that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. She must meet her burden of proof by submitting relevant, probative evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 76; see also section 291 of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § I 361. Here, 
.she has not sufficiently established the procedures utilized for her selection on the national team or 
the or that either organization requires outstanding achievements of its members as a 
prerequisite for membership . 
The Petitioner states that she automatically became a member of the 
because she represented the Philippines and participated in many international competitions as 
one of the top athletes in Taekwondo. The Petitioner submits a certification from the 
indicating that the Petitioner "is a member of the team under the supervision of 
the a duly recognized of the Thus, it appears 
that the is a member of the The record, however, does not demonstrate that the 
allows for individual membership or that it requires outstanding achievements for such membership 
as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
The· Petitioner also claims membership in the to meet this 
criterion. The record contains a Certificate of Recognition stating, "In recognition of your 
achievement as an you are granted use of the post-nominal letters to signify your 
ongoing role in society as an . living and promoting the values." The record 
contains a page from the website stating that the provides assistance to these national 
associations to '"help their members and spread the spirit of in their country." 
However, the certificate in the record does not establish membership in the and we note that 
4 
.
Matter of M-A-R-
the organization's constitution limits membership to national organizations, rather than 
individual Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown that she has membership in the 
and has not established that she 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 field for which classification 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). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. We agree. The record contains 
published material about the Petitioner in professional publications, such as Taekwondo Flash, the 
official publication of the Therefore, the Petitioner 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). 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader. 2 If a critical 
role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. A supporting role may 
be considered "critical" if the petitioner's performance in the role is or was important in that way. It 
is not the title of the petitioner's role, but rather his or her performance in the role that determines 
whether the role is or was critical.3 
The Petitioner asserts that sh~ has performed a leading or critical role for the Philippines, a large 
organization or establishment, in that she excelled in Taekwondo and represented her country in the 
2004 and 2008 . Counsel states that the Petitioner "was hailed as a modem 'hero' by her 
countrymen" and that in 2004 and 2008 "she was considered as the athlete most likely to bring home 
a medal from the ... "not a small feat for a then 16-year-old Tae Kwon Do 
athlete." While we acknowledge the honor it was for the Petitioner to represent her country in the 
her position was not consistent with the requirements of this criterion. The record does 
not contain evidence of a title or duties she held, and thus does not establish that her membership on 
the team equated to a position of leadership for the country or that she played a critical role 
on the team. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that her contributions on the 
team were of significant importance to the activities of the country. While news articles in the 
record indicate hope that she would win the first gold medal for the country since 1996, the record 
' See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submilled with Certain Form f-/40 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adj11dicu1or's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI/-/./ 10 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https:/ /www.uscis.gov/sites/default/fi les/U SCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf. 
3 Id. at 10. 
5 
Matter of M-A-R-
does not identify specific act1v1t1es and explain how they were affected by her performance. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion.4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement, or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
fit).al merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F .3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. In addition, as the 
Petitioner has not established her extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
need not determine whether she is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" 
under section 203(b )( 1 )(A)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-A-R-, ID# 16719.76 (AAO Oct. 30, 2018) 
4 The Petitioner highlights other factors to be considered with this petition, such as the commendation she received from 
the president of the Philippines and the Senate in 2005 and 2006 as well as the endorsements and many invitations she 
received to speak at seminars and symposia. While we find these factors to be noteworthy, it is unclear as to which of 
the above criteria these factors apply. Such evidence would be considered under a final merits detennination regarding 
sustained acclaim in the field upon meeting the initial evidentiary requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5{h){3). 
6