dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-G-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 5, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
J 
The Petitioner, a rowing 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. 
§ 1153(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 petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied any of the regulatory criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits an additional document 
and a brief maintaining that he meets three criteria. 
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 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-G-
(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-pari 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, internatiomilly 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), aff'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 previously participated as a rower in Ukraine competitions and international 
tournaments. He currently works as a rowing coach at the As 
the Petitioner has not 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 that the Petitioner did not meet any of the 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), and the published material criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 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. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-G-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
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 he has won six medals as a rower in international 
competitions from to including one gold, two silvers, and three bronzes. A review of the 
record of proceedings reflects that the Petitioner submitted photographs of various medals. As 
additional evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner offered a letter from 
the Petitioner's former coach, who stated that the Petitioner was the "champion of 
champion In addition, the Petitioner presented a letter from 
executive director for the who indicated that the Petitioner 
received medals at the following events: the ' in 2005, 
2006, and 2007; the in 2008; and the in 2010. 
The record does not include sufficient information or documentation, however, to establish that the 
described awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
Moreover, the record contains a screenshot from indicating that the 
Petitioner was part of a pair that finished second at the in Russia. 
The Petitioner, however, did not establish that his silver medal at the event constitutes a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence, as required by the plain language of this 
criterion. 
Finally, the Petitioner presents on appeal a letter from executive director for 
regarding awards received by athletes coached by the Petitioner. As this criterion relates to the 
petitioner's receipt of prizes or awards, the accomplishments of athletes coached by the Petitioner 
will be addressed under the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).2 Further, 
the Petitioner did not show that he has received any prizes or awards as a rowing coach. For the 
reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating eligibility for 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 orfields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The record includes evidence that the Petitioner participated as a rower at the 2012 on the 
The Petitioner's membership on the 
is, in effect, an association membership that requires outstanding achievements, as judged by 
1 We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence.· 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 11-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) 12 (Dec. 22, 2010), http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-G-
recognized national experts in rowing consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has established 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 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). 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, 
as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. Furthermore, the regulation requires the title, date, author, and necessary translation. 
The Petitioner presented partial translations of screenshots from 
and None of translations include the authors as tequirep by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In additio!J., the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § Id3 .2(b)(3) 
specifically requires that any foreign language document that is submitted to users must be 
accompanied by a full and certified English language translation. Although the partial translations 
mention the Petitioner, he did not establish that the screenshots are about him as he did not offer the 
required full English language translations. In fact, it appears that screenshots are about a 
in Belgium, scholarships for athletes and coaches, and the 
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). Finally, the Petitioner did not provide 
evidence demonstrating that the websites are major media. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown 
that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
Petitioner coached an athlete who finished in first place at the 
athletes who finished second and third at the 
indicating that the 
and two 
The record reflects 
that the Petitioner offered a previous letter from stating that the Petitioner coached 
athletes who won five gold medals and one bronze medal at the 
and in Florida. We note that neither of letters identifies each of 
the athletes' names. Regardless, the Petitioner has not established the significance of the named 
competitions or demonstrated the influence of his coaching beyond the local rowers at See 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Likewise, the Petitioner submitted a letter from manager at the 
who stated that the Petitioner worked with children of 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-G-
various age groups. The letter, however, does not explain how the Petitioner made original 
contributions, and how they are of major significance to the field. The Petitioner did not establish 
his impact outside of the school, so as to show that his contributions are of major significance 
consistent with this regulatory criterion. · 
In addition, the record contains two additional recommendation letters from head 
coach at and former president of who discussed the Petitioner's 
"unique mix of rare and required skill sets." Having a diverse skill set is not a contribution of major 
significance in and of itself. Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has 
used those unique skills to impact the field at a significant level. 
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036 aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, the 
Kazarian court reiterated that the USC IS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the 
relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The letters considered above primarily contain 
attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how his 
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Repeating the language 
of the statute or regulations does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. ·Apr. 18, 1997). Moreover, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U.S. Att'y 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. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record satisfies only 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings 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.P.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. 
5 
Matter of V-G-
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fV-G-, ID# 12598 (AAO Oct. 5, 2016)