dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

, identifYing data deleted to 
prev~nt cleariy unwarTanted 
mvaslOn of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: OC1 2220\0 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1 1 53(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative App-eals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have 
additional information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen. The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R_ § 103.5. 
All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion. The fee for a Form 1-290B is currently $585, but will increase to $630 on 
November 23,2010. Any appeal or motion filed on or after November 23,2010 must be filed with the 
$630 fee. Please be aware that 8,C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~rry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-" 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on October 27, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal, will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and NatIonality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his 
sustained national or international acclaim. . 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence", of a one-time 
achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award: Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. . . . 
Ort appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets. at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Intent to Continue to Work in the'Area of Expertise in the United States 
We note here that in Part' 5 of Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner 
listed his current job occupation as a "Badminton Specialistihead Coach." However, in Part 6, 
the petitioner listed his job title as a "Badminton Athlete." In a letter in support of the petition, 
counsel indicated that "[the petitioner] has been a badminton player and badminton coach for the 
past six years." The statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim 
to be sustained and that he seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States; See 
sections 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. §§ 1153(b)(1 )(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(~)(3) and (5). While a· badminton athlete and a badminton coach share knowledge of 
the' sport; the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, badminton competition and 
instruction are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in federal 
court. In Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary 
ability" as working in the same profession in which one has extniordinary ability, 
not necessarily in any profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary 
ability as a baseball player does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in 
all positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or 
coach. 
Page 3 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. While the documentary evidence 
submitted by the petitioner reflected some evidence of the petitioner as a coach; the· majority of 
the documentary evidence pertained to the petitioner as a competitive athlete. As such, the 
director issued a request for additional evidence affording the petitioner the opportunity to clarify 
his intention to continue to work in the area of expertise in the United States. In response, 
counsel stated: . 
[The petitioner] is seeking approval with uscrs as an EB-l Badminton Athlete. 
[The petitioner] wishes to be a badminton Athlete forthe duration of time that he 
remain[s] competitive. This will last above five to ten more years. After that 
point, [the petitioner] wishes to continue his career in the sport and continue as a 
coach and trainer. 
Moreover, on appeal, counsel stated that "the Petitioner meets the definition of an alien of 
extraordinary ability as a badminton player through his national acclaim in Indonesia and 
international acclaim in the United States." While we acknowledge the possibility of an alien's 
extraordinary claim in more than one field, such as a badminton player and coach, the alien, 
however, must demonstrate "by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to 
continue work in the area of expertise." See the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(S). Although 
the petitioner initially made a claim of eligibility as a coach, the record is clear that the petitioner 
is seeking classification as a badminton player. While the petitioner's documentary evidence 
relating to his coaching is not completely irrelevant and will be given some consideration, 
. ultimately he must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3) through his achievements as a 
badminton player. 
II. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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, 
Page 4 
(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. 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10151 Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29,1991). 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. Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her, sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. / 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; , 
(ii) 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 or 
fields; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) 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 allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles In the field, In 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display ofthealien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
Page 5 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has perfonned in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the perfonning arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the u.s. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial·of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given ·evidentiary criterion.l With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits detennination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of eviderice as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
::petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
"1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits detennination" as 
.:the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS detennines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the [ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained natiomH or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits detennination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court .. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
J Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel,substantive, or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 6 
see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
III. Eligibility at Time of Filing 
The petition was filed on March 9, 2009. However, in response to the director's request for 
evidence and on appeal, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting events 
occurring after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
Therefore, we will not consider these items as evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. 8 
C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set 
of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further 
provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec.' 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider 
facts that come into being only subsequent to the. filing of a petition." Id. at 1,76. 
IV. Analysis' 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In the director's decision, he foun.d that the petitioner's awards were not nationally or 
internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
requires "[ d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor [emphasis added]." A review of the 
documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner reflects that he submitted sufficient 
documentation demonstrating that his awards won in Indonesia are nationally recognized awards 
for excellence in his field of endeavor. Therefore, we withdraw the decision of the director for 
this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of the regulation 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 or fields. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence r~lating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 7 
'tion, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion At the time of the original fi 
based on his membership with 
~:~~~~~::~~~~:'=I~~i;i~rt of the petitioner's claim, he submit,ted a copy of his membership card for and a letter from _ reflecting the 
petitioner's resignation on April 20, 2006. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel argued: 
The has already nominated [the petitioner] to be a 
level one coach and pending background check,[the petitioner] will in fact be 
certified as a levd on coach. Please be aware that there are four levels of 
coaching in accordance to the niles and regulation of' ••••••••••• 
Only the most extraordinary players can be certified as a level coach. Please note 
that each level increases its requirement and its difficulty by the time level four 
coach is certified. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
stated: 
Member of •••••• , who 
As Board member and National Coaching Director of the we are 
constantly looking for more coaches to help send more athletes to the Olympics. 
[The petitioner] has applied for the coaching certification and is pending [ a] 
background check. At the moment, [the petitioner] is assured of a National 
Level-I coaching certificate. There are 4 levels of Coaching, the highest being 
Level-IV, which requires very stringent rules. However, he has the potential and 
the credentials of reaching the highest level of coaching. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii) requires "[d]ocumentation of 
the alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields." In order to demonstrate that membership in 
an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires 
outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. Membership 
requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or 
current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not 
constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not 
determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner's documentary evidence failed to establish 
eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, counsel claims the tioner's el' for this 
criterion based on his membership with the and 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted a letter from of", who stated: 
The _ was established in 1969 and is the most prestigious badminton club in 
Indonesia in its entirety. Only the. most prominent national-level badminton 
players are hired by the _] to represent it in national and' international 
badminton tournaments. Many of the badminton players who play for _ go 
on to train with _ .and :;ome players leave the _ to come back to play 
for our club. 
The _ hired [the petitioner] as a full-time badminton player from July 1999 
. to March 2005 and from April 2006'to July 2006 ... invited [the petitioner] to 
represent our club after he won seven (7) Indonesian Badminton Tournaments and 
placed first at the 
Accordingly, [the: petitioner] is nationally acclaimed in Indonesia, which 
significantly enhanced our reputation as the most prestigious badminton dub in 
Indon~sia while [the petitioner] represented our club at national and international 
badminton competitions. . 
. In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
stated: 
Secretary General of_, who 
The winners ofthe annual National Selection are invited to train with the fir •• 
where the best badminton players in the world. train. Badminton players from 
different clubs and cities are invited to compete at the annual National Selection 
based on whether they win first, second, and third place at national badminton 
tournaments for that year or are ranked for each National Selection varIes 
depending on the number of player slots available·at the.~]. . 
* * * 
As the first place winner at the annual •••••••••••••• , [the 
petitioner] was invited to join the to train full-time with the most 
renowned badminton players in the world. 
Regarding the petitioner's membership with while the petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating his membership, the petitioner failed to establish 
that membership with . requires outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or intern~tional experts in the field. Moreover, as indicated in the 
letter from_ the record reflects that the' petitioner applied for a level one coaching 
certification, of which level four is the highest certification. We note letter, 
dated August 19, 2009, was submitted in response to the director's request and the 
record fails to reflect when the, petitioner applied for level one coaching certification. 
Regardless, the petitioner failed to establish that he reQeived his level one coaching certification 
at the time of the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 
C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14I&N Dec. at 49; Matter of /zummi, 22 I&N 
• 
Page 9 
Dec. at 175; Matter of Bardo u ille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114'. Even if the petitioner received level one 
coaching certification, the petitioner failed to establish that such certification demonstrates 
membership in an association in the field of competitive badminton which requires outstanding 
achievements its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Similarly, regarding_ the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing 
that he was a member o~. However, the petitioner failed to establish that memb~rship with 
_ requires outstanding achievements of its' members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. Merdy submitting documentation reflecting membership in an 
organization, without documentary evidence establishing that the, organization requires 
outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international 
experts, is insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §, 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
We note that although the letter from_indicated that he is the Secretary General of 
_, _ discussed the petit~ement with the _and not_. 
Regarding _ the letter from to reflect the membership requirements, 
so as to establish that outstanding achievements are required for membership with~. Instead, 
stated that they hired the petitioner "after he won seven (7) Indonesian 
... a.va Tournaments and placed first at the 
_" The petitioner failed to demonstrate that such tournament victories are outstanding 
achievements. Regardless, the petitioner failed to establish that membership with _is judged 
by recognized national or international experts. 
Likewise; regarding _, the letter from that badminton players who 
finished first, second, or third at national tournaments or are ranked in the top ten are 
invited to train at the _. However, the petiti.oner failed to establish that such tournament 
victories or ranking also reflects outstanding achievements. Based on the letter from _ 
_ a badminton player's invitation to train at the is based on performances or yearly 
ranking and not "judged by recognized national or international experts." As such, we are not ' 
, persuaded that the petitioner's selection to train at the _demonstrates eligibility pursuant to 
the plain language ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish 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. ' 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on the following submitted documentation:' 
1. An article entitled, "Badminton, Superstar Finds Home at GGBC," 
,unidentified date,~aily News; 
Page 10 
2. An article entitled, "2008 Adult Nationals! Action on the Courts!" May 1, 
2008,GGBC Newsletter; 
3. A document entitled, "2008 United Commercial Bank Adult National 
Championships," unidentified date, unidentified source; 
4. A screenshot enti~led, "X Miami Pan Am International Badminton 
Tournament at Shula's Athletic Club," April 21, 2008, unidentified author, 
5. A screenshot entitled, "Congratulations to ALL Winners & GG Athletes at 
the 2008 UCB National Championshiop,"unidentified date, unidentified 
author, ••••• 
6. A screenshot entitled, "4/8/2008 Adult National Results," unidentified 
date, unidentified author, ••••••••• 
7. A screenshot entitled, "2008 Adult National Results," May 29, 2008, 
unidentified author . . and . 
8. A screenshot of a tournament .bracket for the Y onex Bay Area Open Fall 
2006, unidentified title, unidentified date, unidentified author, 
In response to the direCtor's request for evidence, counsel claimed: 
There is [sic] currently no major publications on the sport of badminton only local 
badminton newsletters are the publication [sic] that handles all the interest that 
published [sic] all the information on the sport of badminton. The major 
publication on badminton in the United States appears to. be on the internet. 
Furthermore, onthe internet there are copious amount of articles broadcast on [the 
petitioner] . 
Furthermore, the petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
A. A screenshot entitled, "Badminton in the USA - 'What is Right About it?' 
- Boston Open, Men's Doubles Finals," May 13, 2009, 
www.usabadminton.org; 
B. A screenshot entitled, "Boston Badminton Open," unidentified date, 
unidentified author, Wikipedia; 
C. Screenshots of Yahoo! Search and Google caches from various websites; 
D. Screenshots from You Tube of the petitioner's tnatc~es; and 
E. A screenshot of picture with a caption, unidentified title, May 12, 2009, 
unidentified author, 
The director determined thatthe petitioner's documentary evidence failed to establish eligibility 
for this criterion. On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner "has published articles about the 
Petitioner in major Indonesia newspapers and major newspapers and magazine in the United 
States." The petitioner also submitted the following documentation: 
Page 11 
1. An article entitled, "The Selection of 16 Shuttlers to Pelatnas," March 17, 
2005, unidentified author, _ 
II. An article entitled, "Transparent is Being Questioned," March 4, 2005, 
unidentified author,_; 
111. An article entitled, "New Admission in Cipayung," March 18, 2005, 
unidentified author, _ 
IV. An article entitled, "Indonesia Will Send 2 Doubles Team," unidentified 
author, March 3,2005,_ 
v. An article entitled, "India Causes Panic," October 21, 2005, unidentified 
author_ 
VI. A document, unidentified title, unidentified date, unidentified author, 
_and 
VII. An article entitled, " and Team Up at the U.S. 
Boston Badminton Open Championships," date, unidentified 
author, unidentified source. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]ublished material 
a,bout 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." In general, in orqer for published 
. material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily 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. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particulru: locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local· community papers.3 
. Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that 
"[s]uchevidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material." 
Regarding item t, the petitioner failed to include the date of the article. While a review of the 
article reflects material about the petitioner relating to his work, the petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence establishing that Daily News is a professiqilal or major trade publication or 
other major media. 
Regarding item 2, a review of the article fails to reflect that it is published material about the 
petitioner. Instead, the article is about the _ USA Badminton Adult Nationals as a whole. 
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that GGBC 
Newsletter is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Regarding item 3, the petitioner failed to include the date of the document. Although the. petitioner 
is mentioned as competing and coaching, the. document is about the~ United Commercial Bank 
Adult National Championships. In addition, the petitioner failed to establish that the document was 
3 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but ina section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
I 
Page 12 
ever published, let alone that it was published in a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media. 
Regarding item 4 - 8, the petitioner failed to include the title, date, and/or author of the screenshots. 
While the petitioner is mentioned as winning a tournament or his name listed in a tournament 
bracket, we are not persuaded that the screenshots reflect published material about the petitioner. 
Further, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation demonstrating that the websites 
submitted by the petitioner are professional or major trade publications or other major media. In 
today's world, many newspapers, regardless of size and distribution, or organizations post some 
stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to render the "major media" requirement 
meaningless .. We are not persuaded that international accessibility by itself is a realistic indicator 
of whether a given website is "major media." 
Similarly, wIth the exception of item A, the petitioner failed to include the title, date, and author of 
the evidence for items B - E. A review of the evidence fails to reflect that it is published material 
about the petitioner relating to' his work. The evidence merely reflects the petitiorier being 
mentioned as participating in tournaments. In fact; the evidence from Yahoo! Search and Google 
reflects excerpts and caches; and the petitioner failed to submit the full articles in order to determine 
if the evidence is published material about the petitioner relating to his work. Merely submitting 
screenshots that mention the petitioner without evidence reflecting material about the petitioner is 
insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation. Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit 
any documentary evidence establishing that the various websites are professional or major trade 
:publications or other major media. We note that since the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
'specifically requires the title, date, and author of the material, screenshots of the petitioner's 
matches on You Tube do riot meet the plain language of the regulation. We further note that the vast 
majority of the items reflect events occurring after the filing of the petition, such as the Wilson 
Boston Open from May 8 - 10, 2009. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 
C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; ,Matter of lzummi, 22I&N 
Dec. at 175; Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114. 
Regarding item i- v, the petitioner failed to include the authors of the articles. A review of the 
articles reflect that the petitioner is simply mentioned as being selected to train, compete, or winning 
in tournaments. However, the articles are not about the petitioner but the selection of several 
athletes to train and compete, as well as the finishes of those athletes. Moreover, the petitioner 
failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that Kompas or Bola are professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
Regarding item vi, the petitioner failed to include the title, date,. and author of the material. While 
the snippet briefly provides some background information regarding the petitioner, we are not 
persuaded that it is published material about the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to 
submit any documentary evidence establishing that INDiner is a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. 
Page 13 
Finally, regarding item vii, the petitioner failed to include the date and author of the material. While 
a review of th~ article reflects material about the petitioner relating to his work, the petitioner failed 
to indicate the source of the article, so as to establish is was published in a professional or major 
trade publication or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, 
related contributions of a major significance in 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the 
based on the following submitted documentation: 
1. A recommendation letter from 
2. 
3. 
4. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, 
artistic, athletic, or business­
field 
'tioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
CEO of USA 
Firecracking 
and 
The concern of the Service is whether or not athletic contributions have made 
major significant [sic] in the field of There has been an up swelling of 
interest in America on the entire sport of Furthermore, there has been 
an up swelling of badminton gymnasiums the United States. From the 
beginning of about two gyms dedicated to the sport, there are now over close to 
twenty such gymnasiums. As another indicator of the interest nationwide is the 
very fact that the sportswear company of Nik~ is producing lines of clothing and 
shoes for the s~o~ ~fba~minton. Usually this! would fO.llow by endorsements ~nd 
name brands IdentIficatlOn events such as sponsorshIp. For now the Umted 
Commercial Bank of California has sponsorbd· numerous events on badminton 
which is another indication that the sport is taken on an economic as well as a 
cultural significance. I .. 
In the director's decision, he concluded that the pptitioner failed to establish that he made 
original contributions of major significance to the field. On appeal, counsel did not specifically 
address or contest the decision of the director for thik criterion. However, counsel refers to the 
petitioner's endorsement contract with Yonex CorpoJation, consultation with Nike, consultation 
with USA Badminton for a DVD project, and a pbrformance at an e?Chibition game for the 
National Badminton League (NBL). I 
·' • 
Page 14 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." While co'unsel argued the recent interest in badmInton in the United 
States, counsel's argument is not relevant to' establish eligibility for this criterion: Instead, in 
compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain language of the regulatory criteria. 
" 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of 
original athletic-related contributions "of major significance in the field." 
Regarding the petitioner's, endorsement of Y onex Corporation, the petitioner submitted a letter 
fro~ National Sales Manager, who stated: . 
In having [the petitioner] as a part he is not just a top player 
we sponsor, but rather a spokesperson and extension of our Company. He has 
always represented Y onex in the most favorable manner, and I can honestly say 
that .the positive reputation of the Yonex brand. has grown because of [the 
petitioner]. I can also say from first hand experience that [the petitioner] strives 
to be the best in ~U aspects of his life, norjust badminton. 
the petitioner and generally credited him with growing the Y onex 
brand, failed to explain how the petitioner's endorsements for Yonex is 
,-,v"."".,u,-,. anon contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. Instead,. 
_ broadly indicated the petitioner'S impact to the limited area of Yonex and not to the 
field of badminton. 
Regarding the petitioner's consultation Nike, the unsigned letter merely thanks the petitioner for 
speaking with Nike "regarding indoor court performance footwear." While the petitioner also 
.submittedphotographs of himself purportedly at the photo shoots, the petitioner failed to 
establish how he has made original contributions of major significance through his consultation 
with Nike. Similar to Y onex, we are not· persuaded that the petitioner's endorsement of Nike 
footwear is reflective of an original contribution of major significance to badminton. Instead, the 
documentary evidence appears to reflect the petitioner's intangible contribution to Nike and not 
to the field of badminton. 
Regarding the petitioner's single advice column in the February 1, 2008 edition of the GGBC 
Newsletter and posted on . the petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence demonstratIng the influence or impact ofthe'single column. For example, 
the petitioner failed to establish that the advice column somehow changed or altered the way 
badminton players perform in matches .. Moreover, while the petitioner's single column may be a 
contribution to the newsletter or website, we are not persuaded that the information in the 
column is an original contribution. The petitioner failed to establish that he created the 
techniques for the "firecracking footwork." 
Regarding the DVD project, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated November 20, 2009, from 
•••••••• USA Badminton, who stated: . : 
Page 15 
" --' --------~-----~ .' -- -----.--------~-.. ~ .. -~ 
USA Badminton Coaching Department is launching its Visual Resource Projects. 
In the first series of such projects, we are embarking on a DVD project. We are 
invItIng and -. former world doubles champions to be 
involved in this project. The~elead by and myself. We 
will be supported by a team of twenty technical experts, Junior players and 
general volunteers. 
In addition to that, we would like to invite you asa key member of the technical 
presenter team with _and _ We believe that your world-class playing 
skills, athleticism and enthusiasm will be a great help in our efforts to promote 
badminton in the USA. 
The letter reflects that the petitioner was invited to be "a key member of the technical presenter 
team" after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 
C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 175; Matter of Bardo u ille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114. Moreover, the record fails to reflect if 
the petitioner participated as a member of the technical presenter team or if the DVDs were ever 
produced .. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of 
future eligibility. The fact remains that any measurable impact that results from the petitioner's 
participation in badminton DVDs will likely occur in the future, if ever. 
-Regarding the petitioner's participation in an exhibition game with the NBL, the petitioner 
,submitted a flyer reflecting that the exhibition game took place on July 6, 2009, after the filing of 
the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec .. at 49; Matter of /zummi, 22· I&N Dec. at 175; Matter of 
Bardo u ille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114. Regardless, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence establishing that his participation in an exhibition game equates to an original 
contribution of major significance to the field. 
We note here the petitioner submitted numerous recommendation letters. We cite representative 
examples: 
[The petitioner] is very well respected in the sport of badminton both as an athlete 
and a coach .... [The petitioner] possesses the highest admiration from those who 
know him both nationally and internationally. [The petitioner] is looked upon as 
a role model by our athletes and commands the highest respect in our sport of 
badminton. 
Chairman of USA Badminton Tournament Committee, stated: 
• 
PageJ6 
Not orily are [the petitioner's] achievements on the badminton court impressive in 
their own right, but the positive effect that he has had on the professional 
development of his doubles partners and team mates is also worthy of mention. A 
good example of this is [the petitioner's] regular partner, _ 
_ with whom he achieved the successes noted in the preceding paragraph. 
Since. teaming up with [the petitioner], _level of play, tactical , 
awareness, self-confidence, and attitude on court have been transformed. From 
being a mid-level player with success only at the regional level, _ is now 
one of the highest ranked players in the USA, has qualified for the U.S. National 
Team, and seems to have found a renewed enthusiasm for the sport and 
. technically is unrecognizable from the player he was just a couple of years ago. 
stated: 
[The petitioner] has significantly improved and increased the level-of-play by 
competing in several national/international competitions in the region. His unique 
skills and technique, developed by years of training with several of the top players 
in the world, h~lVe set him apart frbm his peers and enabled him to make . . 
significant achievements in a very short 'period oftime in the United States. 
stated: 
[The petitioner's] extraordinary skills, knowledge, and experience will more than 
substantially benefit the United States in the field of badminton. As a player, [the 
petitioner] brings national and international acclaim to the field of badminton with 
the many new admirers he has attained because of his many successes. 
I can state without hesitation that [the petitioner] is one of the most talented and 
skilled badminton players in the United States currently. [The petitioner] has 
already proven his capabilities by winning several top tournaments, including 
against tough international competition. I believe that, with the right training and 
support, he will be able to make a significant mark at the international level, while 
representing the U.S. if his green card is approved. Further, [the petitioner] has 
done much to popularize badminton at a personal fevel too. His sportsmanship 
and demeanor on the court have earned him kudos across the community.. His 
hardworklsic], dedication and focus are second to no one. . 
While the petitioner's recommendation letters discuss the petitioner's awards and performances 
in badminton tournaments, this evidence has already been considered under the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), and We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the 
awards criterion is presumptive evidence that· the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold 
.' 
Page 17 
otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three 
. separate criteria. 
Even though the recommendation letters highly pr(:lise and admire the petitioner for his talents as 
a badminton player, the letters contain general statements that lack specific details to 
demonstrate that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance. We note 
that while the letter from 'buted the improvement of 'to the 
petitioner, the record fails to ect that the petitioner's contributions 
. significance to badminton as a whole and not limited to the play 
This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make original contributions, but also 
requires those contributions to be significant. We are not persuaded by vague, solicited letters 
that simply repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's contributions 
have aiready influenced the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satIsfy the petitioner's burden of proof.4 The lack of supporting evidence gives the 
AAO no basis to gauge the significance of the petitioner's present contributions. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert te~timony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (CommT. 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission ofletters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an· immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
original contributions of major significance. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is 
not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Without extensive documentation showing 
that the petitioner's contributions has been unusually influential or widely accepted throughout 
his field, or has otherwise· risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we 
cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 'sauthorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 
4 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.). 
Page 18 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on the previously mentioned advice column entitled, "Coaching Tips: 
Firecracking Footwork," in the February 1,2008 edition of the GGBC Newsletter and posted on 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the advice column appeared in a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media. On appeal, counsel failed to contest the decision of the director or offer additional 
arguments. Therefore, we will not further discuss this criterion on appeal. 
We note that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires 
"[e]vidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media [emphasis added]." Generally, scholarly articles are 
written by and for experts in a particular field of study, are peer-reviewed, and contain references 
to sources used in the articles. In this case, the petitioner's advice column does not contain the 
characteristics of a scholarly article. As there is no evidence such as that the petitioner's advice 
column was peer-reviewed, references any sources, or was otherwise considered "scholarly," the 
advice column is insufficient to meet this criterion. Moreover, this regulatory criterion also 
requires the authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. The petitioner failed to submit any documentation to establish that GGBC 
Newsletter or is a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media. Finally, even if we considered this evidence to be qualifying, which we do not, the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(vi) requires more than one scholarly 
article. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meetsthis criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for 
this criterion based on a screenshot from that counsel claimed was: 
An internet ad regarding a well-known badminton champ' who 
used [the petitioner] to demonstrate the technique of playing badminton in his 
badminton DVDs.5 
In the director's decision, he found that this criterion was not applicable to the petitioner since 
the petitioner's field of endeavor is in athletics and not coaching. On appeal, counsel failed to 
5 We note that a review of the screenshots fails to support counsel's assertion that •••• used the petitioner to 
demonstrate a badminton technique. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel 
will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
, . 
Page 19 
contest the decision of the director or offer additional arguments. Therefore, we will not further 
discuss this criterion on appeal. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sa1ary or other significantly high 
remunerationfor services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner did not claim eligibility for this criterion at the time of the initial filing of the 
petition or in response t6 the director's request for evidence. However, on appeal, counsel 
claims: ' 
The Service erroneously concluded that the Petitioner does not have national 
acclaim in Indonesia and international acclaim in the United States because the 
. JPetitioner commands a higher salary compared to other badminton players in the 
field. 
Counsel refers to evidence, which will be discussed below, that was only submitted on appeal. 
Therefore, the director could not have erred for this criterion as it was only claimed for the first 
time on appeal. Counsel refers to the following documentation: 
1. 
2. 
A previously mentioned letter stated: 
[The petitioner's] salary while at the _ was a full-time badminton 
player was Rp. 1,000,000.00 per month, which is a considerably high 
salary for a badminton player. Salary depends on skill level, age, and 
rank. Considering these factors, [the petitioner's] salary is comparably 
higher than the average badminton player's salary of Rp. 500,000.00 
because [the petitioner's] badminton skills exceed those of other national­
level badminton players. 
A previously mentioned letter from who stated: 
As a full-time salaried badminton player for the _ in 2006, [the 
petitioner] was paid Rp. 1,500,000:00 pet month, which is a significantly 
high salary for a badminton player. Salary depends on skill level, age, and 
rank. Taking these factors into account, [the petitioner's] salary is 
significantly higher than other badminton players at our club because [the 
petitioner's] badminton skills exceed those of other national-level 
badminton players. Also, in comparison, [the petitioner's] salary is higher 
than the average badminton player's salary at other badminton clubs . 
••• also compensated' [the petitioner] for equipment, travel,and 
accommodation costs for badminton competitions. Unfortunately, we. 
cannot provide any other documentary evidence of the [_ payments 
to [the petitioner]. 
·, . --. -~ .... --. ---
,. 
Page 20 
3.· An unsigned Yonex contract from January 1,1999, to December 31,1999, 
reflecting that Y onex will pay annual stipend of $500 on December 1, 
1999. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires "[e]vidence that the 
alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation 
to others in the field [emphasis added]." Regarding item 1; while indicated that the 
petitioner earned 1,000,000 rupees and the average badminton player earned 500,000 rupees, we 
are not persuaded that a letter that compares the petitioner's salary to the average badminton 
player's salary is sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's salary is high in relation to others 
in the field. In addition, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary. evidence supporting the 
claims of _ regarding the average salary of a b",dminton player in Indonesia. 
Regarding item 2, while indicated that the petitioper earned 1,500,000 rupees 
per month, the petitioner failed, to submit any documentary evidence comparing his salary to 
others in his field. Merely submitting a letter that claims that the petitioner's salary "is a 
significantly high salary" without offering evidence comparing the petitioner's salary to others in 
his field fails to meet the eligibility requirements of the regulatio·n. 
Regarding item 3, notwithstanding the fact that the contract is unsigned, the petitioner failed to 
establish that he actually earned any stipends or bonuses from Y onex. In addition, the petitioner 
failed to submit any documentary evidence comparing his endors~ments with others in the field. 
We note that the contract was effective on January 1, 2009. As in.dicated 'above, the contract was 
for a one period, ending on December 31, 2009, and the petitioner's annual stipend of $500 was 
scheduled to be paid on December 1, 2009. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 
C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak,.14I&N Dec. at 49; Matter oflzummi, 22 I&N 
· Dec. at 175; Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114. The petitioner must establish that he 
commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration prior to the filing date of the 
petition. However, we note that according to the exclusive use clause, the player's failure to 
abide with the terms of the contract "will result in forfeiture of any and all stipends and/or bonus 
· monies." Further, pursuant to the termination clause, Yonex may terminate the agreement if the 
player fails to abide by the obligations of the contract. Given these terms, it IS apparent that the 
contract could be terminated prior to the petitioner receiving any compensation. Such evidence 
does not establish that the petitioner "has commanded" a high salary at the time of filing. We 
note that regarding items 2 and 3, the petitioner failed to submit any supporting documentary 
evidence, such as tax returns, to demonstrate that he earned the salary as claimed. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
· B. Final Merits Determination, 
I~ accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1)"" 
. ., 
" .. 
Page 21 
a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1115. The 
petitioner established eligibility for one of the criteria, in which at least three are required under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §. 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies in the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating our final merits determination, we must look at the totality of the evidence to 
conclude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 201 (b)(1 )(A) of the Act. In this case, the' 
petitioner enjoyed some success in badminton tournaments in Indonesia from 2002 - 2004, and 
has wein some local tournaments in the United States. Based on these achieveinents,the petitioner 
has garnered some limited attention from the media and has earned some monetary compensation. 
However, the accomplishments of the petitioner fall far short of establishing that he "is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and that he "has 
sustained national or international acClaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8·U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary 
. ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
.acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), therefore, 
depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A 
lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory . definition of 
"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. § 204.5(h)(2). 
While the petitioner met the plain language of the "lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards" criterion at the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), we note that the 
majority of the awards in Indonesia were from junior-level competitions. For example, the 
petitioner certifications reflect: 
1. 
2; 
3. 
4. 
~the 
_ in the Junior Male Double in 
Third place at the 
Junior Male Double in 
Third place at the 
Double in 
Third place at the 
Male Double in ,I'illliiii 
•• 1 in the,. 
in the Junior 
.. 
.. 
-Page 22 
5. Second place at the in the Junior Male 
Double in •••• 
6. First place at the Sonic Meteor - In 
Junior Male Double in ••• 1; 
7. First place for the in the Junior Male Double in August 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
,12. 
13. 
-Third place at the ~~=====~ •••••••••• in the Junior Male Double in 
First place for the in the 
Junior Male Double in ••••• 
First place at the in the 
Junior Male Double in •••••• 
First place at the 
In 
Third place at the ••••••••••• in Senior Male Double in ____ ·and 
Third placee iait ~th.e.:=r •••••••••••••• in Mixed 
Double in. 
As evidenced above, items 1 - 10 reflect awards won by the petitioner in competitions that were 
'limited by his age and do not incticate that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
. the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Similarly, while the petitioner 
submitted doc he' won the in Men's 
Doubles, 
_ in Mixed Doubles, and in Mixed Doubles and 
Men's Doubles, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating the 
recognition of the awards or tournaments beyond the awarding entities. There is no indication 
. that the petitioner faced significant competition from throughout his field, rather than mostly 
limited to a few individuals in age-based or local competition. 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. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. 
at 60899. 6 Likewise, it does not follow that a badminton competitor like the petitioner who has 
6 While we acknowledg~ that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of 
Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. III. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but 
rather, Racine's ability asa professional hockey player within the NHL.Thisinterpretation is, ' 
consistent with'at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. 
III. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(2), and the 
discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
.. 
Page 23 
had success in a competition restricted by age or locality, should .nece~sarily qualify for an 
extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene 
the regulatory requirement at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that .. 
small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." We 
further note that .even though the record reflects that the petitioner received certificates for the 13 
cited tournaments above in Indonesia, the petitioner placed first in only five of the tournaments, 
in which four of the tournaments were at the junior level. 
While the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the membership criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 , we note that the petitioner failed to establish that his 
involvement with_, _ and_requires outstanding achievements of 
their members so as to demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for 
this highly restrictive classification. 
We also cannot ignore that the statute requires the petltloner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of .sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the 
Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary 
ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 
1991). Although the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the published material criterion, the 
petitioner relied heavily on screenshots from websites that merely list the petitioner's name as 
competing in tournaments. While the petitioner submitted numerous documents, only two of the 
.documents reflected.material about the petitioner relating to his work, in which the petitiorier failed 
to establish that they were published in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. We find that for an athlete, like the petitioner, that the lack of published material about him 
relating to his work demonstrates that he has not achieved the level of sustained national or 
international acclaim. Likewise, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he commands a high salary 
when compared to others in his field. 
Further, the petitioner claimed eligibility for the original contributions criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) based on documentation that the petitioner failed to 
identify how· the evidence related to the criterion. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted 
recommendation letters that provided general appraisals of the petitioner without identifying any 
original contributions of major significance to the field. While such letters can provide 
important details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot form the cornerstone 
of a successful extraordinary ability claim. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues or 
letters that do not specifically identify how her contributions have influenced the field are 
insufficient. The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national or international 
Although the present case arose Within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the 
court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is 
reasonable. 
Page 24 
acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the alien's immediate acquaintances. See 
. section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Further, USC1S may, in its discretion, use as a.dvisory opinion statements as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts in not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. .at 795. 
Finally, when compared to the accomplishments of individuals who submitted recommendation 
letters on the petitioner's behalf, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far 
above the level he has attained. For example, stated that he· was a two-time 
_,three-time ,and· 
Furthermore, stated that he was an -Olympic Gold Medalist and World 
Champion. The to submit evidence demonstrating that he "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field:' In addition, the petitioner has not 
. demonstrated his "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguiSh the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
,demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
v. P-l Nonimmigrant Admission 
Finally, the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner was last admitted as a P-l 
nonimmigrant on January 6, 2009, a visa classification that requires the alien to perform as an 
athlete, either individually or as part of a team, at an internationally recognized level of 
performance, and that the alien seeks to enter the United States "temporarily and solely for the 
purpose of performing as such an athlete." However, while USC1S has approved at least one P-l 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different standard. It must be noted 
that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimh1igrant 
petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US 
v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant 
petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in 
error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. 
Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals 
.. do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment 
of petitioner's qualifications). 
·. 
Page 25 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 597. It would be absurd to suggest that 
USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d at 1090. 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the' service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court: Evert if a service center director had approved 
the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow 
the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiima Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 
WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248F.3d 1139 (5th Cif. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirerrients of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of thegrounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
. appellate review on a de novo basis). 
VI. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved suStained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very topof his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit.sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 136l. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.