dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-A-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB.l3,2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professional swimmer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(I )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classilication 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 lield through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten initial evidence requirements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief. asserting that he meets the necessary criteria and has 
shown his eligibility for the classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classilication as follows: 
(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 benelit 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
.
Matter ofG-A-
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement that is a major. 
internationaJly recognized award. Alternatively. 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 IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). 1 
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:· Muller o( 
Chawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. A"JALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a profes
sional swimmer. Because he has not indicated or established that he has 
received a major , internationally recognized award, to meet the initial evidence requirements. he 
must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A petitioner must establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Afalfer o[Chmvathe, 25 I&).! Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 20\0). In 
other words, a petitioner must show that what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. 
To determine whether a petitioner has met his burden under the preponderance standard, we consider 
not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of 
the evidence. !d. at 376: lvfatler ol E-Af-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm 'r 1989). Here. we have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and conclude that it does not support a tinding that the 
Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 2 
Documentarian of the alien ·s receipt (?lfesser naaonally or inlernationall_v recoKnized prizes or 
award•;fi.Jr excellence ;n the field of'endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence in fonn of photographs and official statistics indicating that he 
won numerous medals in the 
and The 
Director determined that he satistied this criterion. and we concur with that determination. 
1 This case discusses 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 tina\ merits detennination. S'ee also Visinscaiu v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 13l-32(D.D.C.20l3);Riialv. USCJS, 772F.Supp.2d 1339(W.D. Wash.201\). 
2 
We will discus s those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
2 
.
,Hutter ofG-A-
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the fieldfiJr which classification i.\· 
sought. which requir e outstanding achievements of their members. as judged by recogn ized 
national or international experts in their discipline s vr.fiehA. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5 (h)(3 )(ii). 
The Petitioner demonstrated that he was a member of the 
occasions, as well as a member of the 
therefore satisfied this criterion. 
on multiple 
swim team. He has 
Published material about the alien in professional or nu~jor trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien ·s work in the fieldfor which class{ficat ion 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 submitted an article that appeared on a Lithuanian website . The 
regulation requires not only the title, date. and any necessary translation of the evidence. but it also 
requires the author of the material. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The translation does not contain 
the author of the article and consequently will not satisfy the plain language requirements of this 
regulatory criterion. Moreover , while he provided the websit e's "Traffic Statistics." which shovv it is 
ranked number in Lithuania, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence demon strating that 
this website constitutes a professional or major trade publication or other major media . 
The record also contains what appears to be an announcement by The nature of the submitt ed 
document is unclear. as it only indicates that it was '·posted" on " August 14.'' There is no website 
address or other link demonstrating the manner in which this mater ial was published or circu lated . 
Assuming this material was published on website. the mere act of posting an article online 
does not transform what is otherwise a local college nev.'spaper article into major media. Even if the 
record contained sufficient evidence demonstrating that published the material, the record does 
not establish that this site qualifies as major media . Finally , the article does not include the identit y 
of the author. ln light of the above, the Petitioner has not satistied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leadin!!, or critical role .fhr mxanizati ons or 
establishments that have a distinguished repulation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii) . 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role should 
be apparent from the Petitioner 's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The 
Petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for the organization 
or establishment as a whole. 
The Petitioner claimed that he won many medals and scored many points for both the swtm 
team and the He further claimed that he was critical to relay 
cffotis, noting that the results of relays earn more point s in competitions than those earned for 
individual finishes. As such, he claims that his contributions as a relav finisher and individual . " 
swimmer demonstrate that he has performed in a leading and critical role for both team s. 
3 
.
Matter of G-A-
The Petitioner submitted a letter from Head Coac h of the 
swim team and former assistant coach for claims that the Petitioner played a 
leading and critical role for "by scoring numerous point
s throughout the season, using his 
experience in major events to help inexperienced teammate s prepare mentall y and physically for 
major competitions, dominating the and finishing amongst the 
best in the country at the He further claimed that the Petitioner 's role was more critical and 
leading than that of his teammat es due to his " global swimming experience .'' 
He a lso submitted a letter from President of the 
stated that the Petitioner played 
a leading and critical role for the team ''beca use he 
won seve ral medal s and scored numerous valuable point s for at prestigiou s international 
competitions. He further claimed that the Petitioner 's role was more leading and critical than other 
team members "because he holds multiple and because he is 
a consistent 
point scorer for the team.' ' In second letter , he further states that he played a key role 
in the team by "introducing the team to [a] new weight room and dry land techniques he learned in 
the 
While both and assertions are noted, their letters fall sho11 o f 
providing probative informati on that specifically addresse s how the Petitioner's role was critical for 
the teams. We cannot presume that he performed in a leading o r critical role based simply on his 
team participation and because he possesse d "global swimmin
g experience ," as claims , 
or because he was a "co nsistent point scorer'' according to Moreover. while the 
addition of a new weight room is a benefit to the team, it is not indicative of a leading or critical role 
as contemplated by the regulation. 
A letter from Head Coac h ofthe team, claimed that he specificall y recruit ed the 
Petitioner to swim relay, because he was one of the world 's fastest relay swimmers. He corroborates 
the Petitioner's claim that relay points are more valuable in competitions than those earned in 
individual events, and concludes that his relay participation rendered him more critical to the team 
than his other teammate s. however , does not address how the Petitioner 's role 
differentiated him from the numerous other 
team member s who presumably also scored points tor 
the team in various competitions, including those who swa m in relay events. In fact. 
claimed th at '"the hestfh ur team members are selected to swim relay:· (Empha sis added) . It is 
unclear how the Petition er's individual role in a four-pe rson relay event, composed of the four best 
swimmers on the team. is more lead ing and critical than the roles undoubtedl y shared by his three 
fellow relay teammate s. 
Despite the letters from coach es of the swim team, neither attest to the importance of the 
Petitioner's role beyond the earning of points, nor do they exp lain how his competitive results 
impacted the team 's standing in the sport. While the coaches praised his relay abilities and his 
ability to earn valuable points tor the team, they did not show that the swim team garnered 
attention based on his top finishes at national or international swimming competitions in relays or 
individual events. Similarly , despite the submis sion of a letter from the President of the 
4 
.
Matter ofG-A-
there is no letter from the coach of the attesting that 
the team earned attention based on the Petitioner 's medals and accrued point s at various 
competitions. 
Finally, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the organizations have 
a distinguished reputation. With 
respect to the team. the Petitioner has submitted no objective, independent 
documentation to corroborate his claims that it possesses a distinguished reputation. 
Regarding the team, the Petitioner submitted a letter from High 
Performance Director of the who states that the team '·is a distinguished and 
selective team because it belongs to However , mere membership in the does not 
automatically indicate a team has a distinguished reputation. No independent documentation 
establishing that the team ' s reputation is distinguished was submitted. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that this team enjoys a distinguished reputation independent of the university. 
The Petitioner has not established that he performed in a leading or a critical role for either team, as 
required by the regulation. He also provides insutlicient evidence to establish any of the above named 
teams enjoy a distinguished reputation. As a result, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion . 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible for the classification because he has not submitted the required initial 
evidence of either a one-time achievement or document s that meet at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3 )(i)-(x) . Thus, we need not fully address the totality of the materials in 
a final merits determination. Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless , 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Malf er ofG-A-, [0# 873722 (AAO Feb. 13, 2018)