dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-A-G-Q-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27. 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a table tennis player, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1 )(A). 8 U.S.C. 
~ 1153(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which he must meet at least three. In addition, the Director dismissed a subsequent motion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director reached an incorrect conclusion and that he 
meets at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences. arts, education, business. or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
Muller of.!-A-Ci-Q-
requirements. First. a pet1t10ner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a ma1or. 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively. he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three ofthe ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards. memberships, and published material in certain media). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate 
that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his or her occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a tina] merits determination): see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013 ): Rijal v. USC!S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 20 II). 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 tor relevance. probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter o(Chawathe, 25 J&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In 
denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(i). The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the following claimed 
criteria: published materiaL original contributions of major significance, and leading or critical role 
tor distinguished organizations. 1 On appeaL the Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings 
under any of the aforementioned criteria. Rather, he states that Director reached an incorrect 
conclusion regarding this petition and that he believes our review of the matter "will lead to a 
different and positive decision.'' 2 For the reasons discussed below. the record does not support a 
finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
1 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). (v), and (viii), respectively. 
' In addition. the Petitioner states: ''Should this Petition be denied [he] will sutTer extreme hardship and be forced to 
return to a home country where he is at serious risk of physical harm." The scope of our review in this matter. however. 
relates to whether the Petitioner qualifies for classitication as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
2 
.
,Hatter c~f.I-A-G-Q-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 3 
Documentar;on q{" the alien's receip! of lesser national~~' or internationall y 
recognized prizes or awards .fhr excellence in rhe .field ol endeavor. 8 C.f .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(i). 
The Director found that that the Petitioner had demonstrated his receip t of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards tor excellence in table tennis . For the rea sons outlined 
below , we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sutlicient documentary evidence showing that 
he meet s the pla in language of this criterion. Accordingly , the Direct or's determination on this issue 
will be withdrawn. 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted photographs of various trophies and 
medals, event participation badges, identification tags with his player number , and table tennis 
player rankings for EI Saivador. 4 In addition, he provided multiple statements from 
an international coach with the dc ::-; cribin~ 
compctitiuns in \\ hich the Petitioner participated such a~ the.:• 
the the and the 
In addition. statements discuss \"<lrtous 
competitions and tuurnaments in \\h ich the Petitioner rL·cciH.:t.lt rophic s or med als. For c~ampk. 
inJ icatcs in separak' statements that the Petitioner \\Oil li rsl place at the 
the and the Whik 
ofkrs a hrier description of the al'orcmcntioncJ tournament s. his assertion s alone an: 
insufficient Ln demonstrate that the Petitioner's trophies and medals are "nationally or internat ionall y 
recognized'' prizes or awards for exce llence in the field. The Petitioner has not establish ed thereto re 
that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published marerial about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. relatin g to I he alien's 1vork in the .field for which classification is sough!. 
Such evidence shall include the til/e. daje, and author l?lthe material. and any necessar _v 
jranslation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted an 2004 article in entitled · 
but its author was not identified as required under this criterion. Nor is this article 
about the Petitioner. For example, the article notes that "[fl our table tennis champions 
were crowned at the national level.'' The Petitioner , however, was not among the four champions 
listed and the article does not mention him by name. In addition. the record does not show that 
qualities as professional or trade publication. or a form of major media. A webpage from this 
1 
We have reviewed all of the evidence the Petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria he asserts that he 
meets or for which he has submitted relevant evidence. 
~The highest ranking achieved by the Petitioner was in 2006. 
' does not state, nor does the record demonstrate. that the Petitioner received awards <.~t these competitions. 
3 
.
Matter of J-A-G-Q-
publication asserts that ' is leading epaper in ... El Salvador," but 
does not provide its circulation or online readership numbers , nor does the record include 
comparative circulation statistics. USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the 
publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, qff"d 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9). For the 
above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scientific. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business­
related contributions t?{majur significance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence for this criterion , the Petitioner submitted photographs of his trophies and medals . The 
regulations include a separate criterion for awards discussed above. Consistent with the regulatory 
requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria, we will generally not consider 
evidence relating to the awards criterion to satisfy this one. Nonetheless, the record doe s not 
establish that the Petitioner ' s trophies and medals were indicative of his original contributions of 
major significance in the field . For instance, the evidence does not indicate that his awards 
recognized an original achievement in his sport that the record shows constitutes a contribution of 
major significance in table tennis. 
As another form of evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters 
from others in his sport discussing his playing skills and sportsmanship.° For example, 
a judge and referee for the states that the Petitioner .. stood out as 
one of the best athletes of his group'' and showed respect, empathy, good interpersonal relationships. 
and teamwork. In addition, a player who trained with the 
Petitioner , asserts that he "competed and traveled in different delegations of the 
' and was a good friend. sportsman, and responsible athlete. The record, however. does 
not indicate that the Petitioner's methods of play have affected others in his sport. that he introduced 
techniques that have been widely utilized , or that his work otherwise represents an original 
contribution of major signiticance in the field . Without sufficient evidence demon strating that his 
table tennis accomplishments constitute original contributions of major significance in his sport, the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perj(mned in a leading or critical role .fhr organizathms or 
establishments that hare a distinguished repwation. 8 C. F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(viii). 
The record contains referenc e letters and rankings indicating that the Petitioner competed for the 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role 
itself: while a critical role is one in which an individual was responsible for the success or standing 
of the organization . The Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish where his role tit within the 
overall hierarch y of The submitted documentation does not differentiate the Petitioner from 
the other players and coaches so as to demonstrate his leading role, and does not establish that his level 
of play contributed to the organization in a way that was of substantial importance to its success or 
<• While we discuss only a sample of the letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
.
Malfer (?f.!-A-G-Q-
standing. Furthermore, the record does not include sut1icient documentary evidence showing that 
has a distinguished reputation relative to other table tennis associations. For these reasons, 
the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Continuing Work in the Area of Expertise 
As the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, we need not determine whether he is coming to '·continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability'' under section 203(h)(l)(A)(ii). We note, however, that the record does not include 
documentation ofthe Petitioner ' s plans for future work in the United States. /d.7 
HI. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the material s in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian. 596 F.3d at 119-20. Nevertheless. we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has established the level of expertise required for the clas sification sought. Further, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that he will continue to work in his area of expet1ise in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismi ssed. 
Cite as A-fatter o(J-A-G-Q-, lD# 943576 (AAO Feb. 27, 20 18) 
7 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5), which provides that ·'the petition must be accompanied by clear evidence that the alien 
is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise:· and that ·'[s Juch evidence may include letter(s) 
from prospective employer(s). evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts. or a statement from the 
beneticiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States.·· 
5