dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-L-8-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 9, 2018 
PETlTION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a trainer and coach, 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. 
§ l l 53(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 of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, contending that he received a 
major award and meets at least three criteria of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas 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 m 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 
Matter of M-L-B-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(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). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 
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. USCJS, 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. USCJS, 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 of Chawathe," 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
IL ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner previously competed as a track and field athlete until 2006. Shortly thereafter, the 
Petitioner held various coaching positions in Canada ranging in track and field, football, and 
basketball. Presently, the Petitioner indicates that he is a personal coach for numerous athletes and 
intends to continue his work in the United States as an athletic trainer and coach. 
While the Director discounted the Petitioner's documentary evidence relating to him as a track and 
field athlete, we will instead evaluate all evidence relating to the Petitioner's athletic achievements 
as both an athlete and a coach and trainer. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he won a major, 
internationally recognized award under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that he also satisfies four of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i)-(x). We have reviewed all of the evidence in 
1 We note that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) provides: 
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international acclaim as an athlete 
and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching/managing at a national level, adjudicators can 
consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and 
·extraordinary ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of 
expertise. 
AFM ch. 22.22(i)(l)(C) (emphasis in original). 
2 
.
Maller of M-L-B-
the record of proceedings, and it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has a one-time 
achievement or fulfills the plain language requirements of at least three criteria.2 
A. One-Time Achievement 
The Petitioner argues for the first time on appeal that his gold medal at the 1999 
gold medals at the 2002 and 2006 bronze medal at the 2003 
and silver medal at the 1999 constitute a one-time 
achievement. Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of 
individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting 
eligibility based on a one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small 
handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards . 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; other 
examples which enjoy major, international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy 
Award, and an Olympic Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that 
a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media 
internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at 
large, and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably 
constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example 
provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the 
field as one of the top awards . 
Although the Petitioner documented his receipt of medals , he did not show that his awards are 
internationally recognized at the level of "one-time achie~ement[s]." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3) requires the one-time achievement to be "a major, international[ly] recognized award." 
The Petitioner did not present, for example, evidence that the competition or award is widely 
reported by international media or garnered attention comparable to other major, globally recognized 
awards such as Oscar or Olympic medal winners. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that he meets the requirements of a one-time achievement. 
2 If the Petitioner had satisfied the evidentiary requirements, then we would have conducted a final merits determination 
as to whether the totality of the record showed sustained national or international acclaim under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 
of the Act. The next step would have been to decide whether he intended to continue to work in the United States in his 
area of expertise under section 203(b )( I )(A)(ii), and finally, whether his entrance would have substantially benefited the 
United States under section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) . 
3 
.
Maller of M-l-B-
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards.for excellence in the.field ofendeavor . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner established that he received lesser internationally recognized 
awards for excellence as evidenced by his medals. Therefore, the Petitioner demonstrated that he 
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.S(h)(3)(ii). 
The record indicates the Petitioner's membership with the 2000 and 2004 
Accordingly, the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. 
teams . 
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 Petitioner provided a photograph of him displayed in 
Although they contain captions crediting the Petitioner in the photographs, the Petitioner did not 
include the required authors of the material. Moreover, while we recognize as a 
major medium, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that ___ is a qualifying publication. 
In addition, he presented a cereal box featuring him on the cover of The 
cereal box, however, does not contain the date and author, and the Petitioner did not establish that 
this qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major medium .3 
Further, the Petitioner submitted a screen~hot from halloffame.athletics.ca relating ·to his induction 
into The screenshot does not include the date and author, and 
the Petitioner did not show that the website is a major medium . Similarly, the Petitioner offered 
documentation claiming from the 
Though the material is about the Petitioner, he did not include the date and author, and he did not 
demonstrate that it appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media . 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions ; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22 .2, AFM Update AD I 1-14 7 (Dec . 22, 20 I 0), 
https://www .uscis .gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that marketing materials created for the purpose 
of selling the alien's products or promoting his or her services are not generally considered to be published material 
about the beneficiary) . 
4 
.
Maller of M-L-B-
Finally, on appeal, the Petitioner provides two screenshots from 
of his performance at the 2002 and the 2003 
Petitioner, however, did not include the required authors of the material. 
reflecting coverage 
The 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden in demonstrating that he meets the 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence thal the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizalions or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) . 
The Petitioner argued that he performed in a leading or critical role as a coach for the 
and as well as for a personal athlete. If a 
leading role, then evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with 
appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading.4 For a critical 
role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities . It is not the title of a 
petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was 
critical. 5 
The Petitioner provided general letters of recommendation that confirmed his coaching experience 
but did not demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a 
distinguished reputations. For instance, stated that she has run a winter sports camp, 
with the Petitioner for the past three years and has around 40 athletes per yea,r. 
While the Petitioner's role in running the may be considered as a leading role, 
he did not demonstrate that the camp enjoys a distinguished reputation in the field. 
In addition, stated that he coached with him in the however, did 
not indicate .what coaching position(s) the Petitioner occupied, what team(s) he coached, and how 
the Petitioner contributed to the successes or standings of the team(s) or the overall Further, 
the Petitioner did not establish that the teams he coached or the enjoys a distinguished 
reputation . 
Moreover, credited the Petitioner for increasing his speed and indicated that he now 
has him training his nine year-old son. As the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the 
role to be for orgariizations or establishments, the personal training of athletes do not meet this 
criterion. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, supra, at IO. 
5 Id. 
5 
Maller of M-L-B-
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in 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 sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification 
sought. Although the record indicates the Petitioner achieved some successes earlier in his career as 
' an athletic competitor, it does not show he . has continued to earn recognition for his 
accomplishments later in his career as a coach and athletic trainer consistent with a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field that has been sustained through his career, and that he is 
one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.6 See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter<~[ M-L-B-, ID# 1597025 (AAO Aug. 9, 2018) 
6 As the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, we need not 
detennine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" under section 203(b)( I )(A)(ii). 
However, we briefly note that the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has achieved recent acclaim as an 
athlete, or that he has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching/training at a national level to show that 
coaching/training is within his area of expertise. AFM ch. 22.22(i)(I )(C). 
6