dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-T-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 24,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a weightlifter, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(A). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(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 satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria. of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides documentation and a brief. stating that he meets at least three 
criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of 1-T-
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). 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). 
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. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-pat1 review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a tina! merits determination): see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); R(ial 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.'' Maller (~fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a full-time athlete in the sport of 
the 
weightlithng. He is currently enrolled in 
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 ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition. the 
Director found that the Petitioner met only two criteria: prizes or awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(i) and judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iv). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets three additional criteria: memberships under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ii), published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and original 
contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). We have reviewed all ofthe evidence in the 
record and conclude it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien ·s receipt (?flesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards.fhr excellence in thefield C?lendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record indicates that the Petitioner received several nationally recognized awards for 
weightlifting including winning first place in the Accordingly, 
2 
.
Matter r~f 1-T-
we agree with the Director's determination, and the Petitioner demonstrated that he meets this 
criterion. 
Documentation qf the alien 's membership in associations in the .field.fi>r 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 contends that he meets this criterion based on his membership with the 
team, and by obtaining a vocational diploma in weightlifting from 
the 
The record contains a letter from the general secretary of the 
confirmed that the Petitioner has 
been a member since 2009 and stated that the "requires outstanding achievements of its 
members , as judged by national and internationally recognized experts in the tield of 
weightlifting." does not define what outstanding achievements are required of its 
members , or explain in any detail how the federation will determine if an individual is an 
outstanding weightlitter. Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden ofproof. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at * 5 
(S.D.N.Y.). 
In his letter, explained that "we are unable to provide copies of the team· s rules or 
organizational documents as these are not open to the public according to Georgian law .. , However. 
the Petitioner did not submit supporting evidence demonstrating that Georgian law that precludes 
showing the organizational documents, or further information as to why the organization 
could not share documents such as the organization's bylaws or constitution. In addition to lacking 
evidence regarding membership requirements , the record lacks sufficient information on 
the individuals that choose the members and whether they are national or international experts in 
their disciplines or fields. 
Regarding the Petitioner's claim that he meets the membership criterion through obtaining a 
vocational diploma in weightlitting from the 
this entity is an academic institution where he was enrolled as a student rather than an 
association in which he was a member. He did not indicate or demonstrate that he acquired 
"membership'' with the state college based on his outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. For these reasons, the Petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence o{the alien's participation , either individually or on a panel. as ajudge l~{the work(~{ 
others in the same or an alliedfield q{ spec(ficationfor 1-vhich class~fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
3 
.
Matter of I-T-
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion based on the information provided in a 
letter 
from the Upon review of the documentation, we 
disagree with the Director and withdraw her finding on this issue. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from general secretary of that provides 
a list of events at which the Petitioner acted as a chief or side referee. However. the letter does not 
describe the duties of a referee to demonstrate whether they involve judging the work or skills of 
competitors as opposed to enforcing the rules of a match and ensuring sportsmanlike 
competition. The record lacks other evidence, such as official competition rules for the tournaments 
listed in the letter, showing that serving as a ''referee" in this instance equates to 
participating as a "judge., of the work of others. 
Without further evidence that the Petitioner's refereeing duties involved judging the work of others, 
such as awarding points or choosing the ultimate winner, he has not met this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien ·s work in thefieldfor which class(ficafion is sought. S'uch 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 submits newspaper articles regarding his accomplishments in weightlitting. The 
newspaper articles constitute published material about him relating to his work. However, he did not 
otler sufficient evidence to establish that the newspapers are considered major media. For example, 
some of the articles were published in which according to the submitted media kit, has a 
circulation of 2000-2500 copies distributed throughout Georgia. Another published article was in 
the that has a circulation of 3000 copies throughout Georgia. On appeal , the 
Petitioner contends that Georgia has a population of almost 4 million so the circulation numbers of 
and the signify major media. However, he did not provide sufficient 
supporting documentation, such as circulation 
statistics for other publications in Georgia. to support 
his assertion. Therefore, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scienl{fic, scholarly. artistic , athletic. or husiness·-related 
contributions l?f'major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his activities have been ·'recognized as a contribution of 
major significance to the field by champions and leading experts in the sport of weightlifting." He 
submits recommendation letters to demonstrate his eligibility for this criterion. In order to satisfy 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). a petitioner must establish that not only has he made 
original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a 
petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the tield, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
4 
.
Matter of I-T-
Upon review of the letters, they generally praise the Petitioner's weightlifting skills and refer to his 
awards that he has received in his weightlifting career. 
1 
For example, a letter from 
president of stated that the Petitioner is 
"very talented and weightlifter from Georgia." He goes on to state that he received 
national and international recognition in 2007 when he won a silver medal at the 
m weightlifting. In addition, a letter from a coach at 
wrote that the Petitioner has 
"demonstrated the very highest achievements in the field of weightlifting and made a 
contribution of major significance." Although both authors indicate that the Petitioner is a great 
athlete, they did not indicate a contribution he made to the field outside of winning awards. The fact 
that he has obtained prestigious awards is not sutlicient evidence to demonstrate an original 
contribution of significance in the field. 2 
The record also contains a letter from leading coach of the 
He states that the Petitioner has "undoubtedly risen to a level 
above nearly all others in the field of weightlifting, as demonstrated by his consistent track record 
winning top competitions in weightlifting." He also provides a summary of the Petitioner"s awards 
and states that "I am positive that [the Petitioner's] athletic achievements represent a significant 
contribution to the field of weightlifting due to his particular system and techniques, which allowed 
him to compete successfully as a professional weightlifter." However, does not 
provide additional information regarding the Petitioner's system and techniques to explain their 
originality 
or how they have been of major significance in the field. 
Having the athletic skill is not in-and-of-itself a contribution of major significance, unless a 
petitioner shows that he has used those skills to impact or influence the field; in this case, the 
Petitioner has not made such a showing. While several of the Petitioner's recommendations include 
the terms "contributions" and ··major significance:· letters that repeat the regulatory language but do 
not explain how a petitioner's contributions have influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036. aff'd in part, 
596 F.3d at 1 t 15, 1122. The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the 
Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of contributions he has made that 
rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The US. Att J' Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
1 
While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each letter present in the record. 
2 
We note that the regulations include a separate criterion for awards, 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i), discussed 
above. Consistent with the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria, we will generally 
not consider evidence relating to the awards criterion to satisfy this one. 
Matter of 1-T-
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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. 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 of 1-T-. ID# 838172 (AAO Jan. 24, 2018) 
6