dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-M-E-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 11, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wrestler, 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 153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, arguing that he meets at least three 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 H-M-E-A-
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual'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. USCIS, 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 l&N Dec. 369, 376 {AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a wrestler who has competed at the 2016 I I and in local and 
international tournaments. Because he has not indicated or 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 the Petitioner met only 
two of the initial evidentiary criteria, awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and memberships under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The record reflects that the Petitioner medaled at international tournaments, 
such as thel !Championships. In addition, the Petitioner was a member of the 20161 I I lteam. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the awards and 
memberships criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets two additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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 class[fication 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 contends that "the published material submitted in the original filing includes 
publications featured in the BBC News,I I and Sports & Fitness, which are each read by 
2 
Matter of H-M-E-A-
an international audience numbering in the tens of thousands." Moreover, he argues that "the articles 
are centered around the wrestling achievements of [him] and his upcoming international competitions 
as work in his field of expertise." In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
including the title, date, and author of the material. 1 
As it relates to BBC News and Sports & Fitness, the Petitioner did not include the authors of the 
material. The inclusion of the author is not optional but a regulatory requirement. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, as it relates to BBC News, the Petitioner provided a screenshot from 
bbc.com reflecting the listing of the results for the 2016 I !wrestling matches. Similarly, 
d. S rts & Fitness, the Petitioner submitted an excerpt ofbriefl I athletes' profiles for 
. Likewise, concerning I ~e Petitioner presented screenshots from 
pertaining to a preview of the I where the Petitioner is mentioned among 
all of the other wrestling competitor~er, the documentation is not about him but rather an 
overview of upcoming and completedL__Jwrestling matches andl I athletes. Articles that 
are not about a petitioner do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-
CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show 
are not about the actor). 2 
In addition, the Petitioner did not offer any supporting documentation to corroborate his assertions 
that the publications "are read each by an international audience numbering in the tens of thousands." 3 
Moreover, while we recognize the BBC News and its website as major media, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that a readership of "tens of thousands" is tantamount to a major medium. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies 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). 
~titioner argues that his recommendation letters show his role with the.__ ________ _, 
L___J As it relates to a leading role, the 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 
Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate 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 
1 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 ADJ 1-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (finding that the published material should be about 
the petitioner relating to his or her work in the field, not just about his or her employer or another organization with whom 
he or she is associated). 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
5 Id. 
3 
Matter of H-M-E-A-
According tol ~wrestling and life coach, the Petitioner "continued to prove his leading 
and critical role with I _ through successive wins at the I I Championshi]s and 
I I Games in 2014 and 2015 to qualify for the 2016 I _" and 
"[t]his impressive representation of his country further helps to demonstrate his critical role as an 
award winning wrestler with thel I and the contributions he has made in elevating the 
status and international rankings of the country's team." Furthermore wrestling 
coach, indicated that the Petitioner "was a critical member ofl ldue to his winning record and 
encouraging sportsmanlike attitude that he displayed towards his teammates." 
Althou~ I rJ.ndl I claimed that the Petitioner performed in a leading and critical 
role forl__J they did not provide specific information. 6 Instead, they made general statements 
relating to his role and contributions to the team without demonstrating how his role was either leading 
or critical. For instance.I ldid not explain how the Petitioner's achievements of winning 
wrestling tournaments and qualifying for the I I was leading or critical toe=] overall. 
Moreover,! I did not further elaborate on how the Petitioner's wins elevated the status and 
rankings otl I Likewise.I I did not detail how the Petitioner's winning record and 
sportsmanlike impacted or contributed to the team. Again, the letters do not contain sufficient 
information to establish the significance of the Petitioner's role withLJ For example, the letters do 
not show how the Petitioner's role as a wrestler differentiated from the others wrestlers or positions 
witLJor how he was essential in contributing to the overall successes ofD 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate thatD enjoys a distinguished reputation consistent 
with th is leg u latlry criterion. 7 The Petitioner does nor I mentioln, nor does the record contain' evi de nee 
reflecting reputation. As discussed above, referenced Os "international 
rankings of the country's team" but did not indicate international ranking. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not provide, for example, documentation showing the general field's view oO how 
its reputation compares to other national wrestling teams, ore=] successes in relation to others. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he fulfills this criterion. 
111. 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 acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). See also Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Aiyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.) 
(repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof). 
7 Id. at 10-11 (defining Merriam-Webster's Dictiona,y definition of "distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, 
or excellence). 
4 
Matter of H-M-E-A-
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 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, the petitioner bears 
the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofH-M-E-A-, ID# 3385357 (AAO June 11, 2019) 
5