dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: J. PR 2 3 20& 
WAC 03 094 53356 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
V 4 Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
rage z 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. The director found that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
Section 2030) 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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "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." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@1)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics as a personal 
trainer of power lifting. All of the evidence submitted relates to the petitioner's abilities as an individual athlete 
in power lifting. None of the evidence relates to his skills as a personal trainer, the profession he seeks to pursue 
in the United States. Thus the petitioner has not met the statutory requirement that he seeks entrance to the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
9 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii). See also Lee v. Z.N.S., 237 F.Supp. 26 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Although a nexus exists 
between skill and experience as an athlete and as a personal trainer in the same sport, the two professions are not 
identical. We cannot presume that every successful athlete can become an equally successful personal trainer. 
In cases involving the similar situation of former athletes who seek to work as coaches in the United States, this 
office has determined that given the nexus between competing and coaching, in a case where an alien has clearly 
achieved national or international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at 
a national level, an adjudicator may consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of 
sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability. Yet we cannot apply that analysis to this case because the petitioner 
presents no evidence that he has ever worked as a personal trainer. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence of eight awards which he won in national and international power 
lifting competitions between 1997 and 2000 as well as a letter from L.A. Fitness Sports Clubs stating that they 
would hire the petitioner as a power lifter trainer because of his "unique power lifting experience." In response 
to the director's request f evidence, the petitioner submitted two articles, a handwritten recommendation letter 
from power lifter and nine documents from power lifting officials in Uruguay attesting to their 
authority and the nature and significance of the petitioner's awards, judging experience, and membership in 
power lifting organizations. The director found that the petitioner met only one regulatory criterion and 
consequently denied his petition. On appeal, counsel maintains that the petitioner meets three criteria. We 
affm the director's ultimate decision that the petitioner is not an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics as 
a personal trainer. The evidence submitted, the director's decision and counsel's contentions are addnessed in 
the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he received numerous awards in national competitions held by the Power 
Lifting Federation of Uruguay (FULP) from 1997 to 2000. In 1997, the petitioner was the national vice- 
champion of power lifting. In 1998, he was the national champion of power lifting. From 1998 through 2000, 
the petitioner was the national champion in the bench press and set a national record in 2000. In 1998 and 1999, 
the petitioner was named a Youth of Promise in power lifting by the Olympic Committee of Uruguay (COU). In 
1998, the petitioner won a bronze medal in power lifting at the South America Championship of Power Lifting 
conducted by the South America Power Lifting Federation (FESUPO). The petitioner also submitted a 
document by FULP and FESUPO officials attesting to the nature and significance of these awards. In his 
discussion of this criterion, the director concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish the petitioner's 
- eligibility under this category.' 
We would agree with the director's decision if the petitioner was seeking to work in the United States as a 
power lifter. Yet the petitioner plans to work as a personal trainer. The petitioner's awards evidence his ability 
as a power lifter, but do not speak to his skill as a personal trainer. Evidently, national power lifting training 
awards do exist in Uruguay, but the petitioner apparently has won no such a~ards.~ We cannot even consider 
awards won by athletes the petitioner has trained as potentially comparable evidence for this criterion under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(4) because the petitioner has no experience as a personal trainer. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not established his eligibility under this criterion. 
1 
On page two of the director's decision he finds that the petitioner has met this criterion, but then states in 
the final paragraph of his decision that no evidence was found relating to this criterion. We believe the latter 
statement is an error. 
2 The petitioner submitted evidence that the COU awards a prize for "best trainer" in power lifting to the 
individual who has trained the most champions. See Petitioner's Exhibit, "Participation of Pablo Eguez as 
Leader in Recognized Organization." 
Page 4 . 
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. 
The diitor correctly concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted 
evidence that FUPO selected him as a member of the team representing Uruguay in the 1998 FESUPO 
championship because he was the national champion in power lifting for that year. Based on his subsequent 
receipt of a bronze medal in the 1998 South America Championship of Power Lifting, the petitioner then 
became a "member" of FESUPO. Although athletic teams are not "associations," we can consider evidence of 
national teams such as Olympic delegations as comparable evidence for this criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(4) because membership in such a team results from national competitions run by national experts. 
Thus the evidence submitted in this case might demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility as an athlete, but it does 
not establish his eligibility as a personal trainer. 
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. 
The director correctly found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to meet this criterion. The petitioner 
submitted an article from the May 19, 1999 edition of the Diario El Pais newspaper entitled "Federico Morales 
Was Honor [sic] Like the Best Athlete of the Year: The Weight of a Legend." The text of the article does not 
mention the petitioner, but simply lists his name in a table of "The Best" athletes in 30 categories as the 
"promissory figure" in power lifting. The petitioner also submitted an article about a power lifting exhibition in 
the May 2000 edition of ''Club News" that only briefly mentions the petitioner as "the national record holder" 
who participated in the exhibition. Diario El Pais may be a major newspaper in Uruguay, but the petitioner 
offers no evidence that "Club News" is a major trade publication. Most importantly, neither of the articles 
focuses on the petitioner (as power lifter or personal trainer) and cannot establish his eligibility under this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an alliedfield of specification for which chsification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he was a "left support judge" for four national power lifting 
championships of the FWO in 1999. According to FWO officials and a former international power lifting 
judge, FWO judges must pass a test administered and certified by the International Judge of Powerlifting 
association (JPF). The test requires a candidate to understand the current international rules of power lifting and 
demonstrate his knowledge in an interview with IPF officials. The petitioner passed this interview and was also 
chosen for his "excellent performance in powerlifting." The director did not address this evidence and it merits 
brief discussion. The petitioner was selected once to serve on the annual panel of power lifting judges for 
national FLTPO competitions. Although significant, that one-time service occurred over three years before the 
filing of the petition and does not reflect sustained national acclaim as either an athlete or a personal trainer in 
power lifting. 
Evidence that the alien has pe$onned in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished repuration. 
The director correctly concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted 
evidence that he participated in national and international competitions organized by FCTPO and FESUPO and 
that he won several national and one international awards. The petitioner's awards and consequent membership 
in FUPO and FESUPO were also considered in the above discussion of the first and second criteria. The 
statutory requirement for extensive documentation and the regulatory requirement to meet at least three criteria 
lead us to disfavor considering one accomplishment under several criteria. In addition, the attestation of FUPO 
and FESUPO officials documents that the petitioner was an athlete of considerable value to these two groups, 
but it does not establish that he played a critical or leading role for either organization. It is also important to 
note that the petitioner's role in these organizations was that of an athlete, not a personal trainer. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act only if the alien can 
establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim 
demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. The petitioner bears this 
substantial burden of proof. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. The petitioner in this case has not met 
that burden. The evidence shows that the petitioner was a talented power lifter who won several awards and 
once judged power lifting competitions in his native country. However, the record is insufficient to establish 
that the petitioner is an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics, specifically as a personal trainer for power 
lifting. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.