dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-A-
Non· Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 14, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a taekwondo athlete, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. This first preference classification makes immigrant visa available to those who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petitioner Alien Worker, finding he did not satisfy the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to 
individuals of extraordinary ability, either a major, internationally recognized award or at least three 
of ten possible forms of documentation. We dismissed his subsequent appeal on the same basis.
1 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider and a motion to reopen. Upon review, we 
will deny the motions. 
I. LAW 
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 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). Where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we 
will then determine whether the totality of 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. 2 
1 See Matter of 1-A-, ID# 698645 (AAO Dec. 22, 2017). 
2 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first 
counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D. D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USC/S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. 
Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity 
of evidence alone but by its quality,'' as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
.
Matter of 1-A-
In addition, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and a motion to 
reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
IL BACKGROUND 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner satisfied only one of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In his motion to reconsider, he argues 
eligibility for the one-time achievement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In his motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner presents 
additional documentation regarding published material under 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3)(iii) and judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
III. ANALYSIS 
A Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at 
the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). The Petitioner argues that his "victories over the 
most elite athletes in the world - speak to his position at the very top of the world." In 
addition, the Petitioner contends that we improperly imposed a requirement that he submit evidence 
that international media covered the event, and that the event is familiar to the public at large, which 
cannot be found in statute or regulations. 
The Petitioner provided evidence establishing that he received a gold medal at the 20 16 
and a bronze medal at the 2015 The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires the one-time achievement to be "a major, 
international[ly] recognized award." Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small 
percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation 
permitting eligibility based on a one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only 
a small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally re\ognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 
101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. 
The House Report specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; 
other examples which enjoy major, international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the 
Academy Award, and an Olympic Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, 
stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in 
probative value, and credibility, both individually anti within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter ofC/wwathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
2 
.
Matter of 1-A-
the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to 
the public at large, and includes a large cash prize . While an internationall y recog nized award could 
conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clea r from 
the example provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally 
recognized in the field as one of the top awa rds. 
Although we do not require the Petitioner to submit evidence of international media coverage or that 
the event is familiar to the public at large, those characteristics, as discussed above, are typically 
present in major, internationally recognized awards. On motion, the Petitioner does not reference 
any alternative evidence showing that his awards are viewed as one-tim e ach ievements. Nor 
does the Petitioner supplement the motion with a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory 
or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Services or Depart ment of 
Homeland Security, demonstrating that we incorrectly applied law or policy in our decision. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
Regarding the published material criterion , the Petitioner previously submitted a screenshot from 
news.tj, a transcript of a broadcast interview from and an article published in 
On motion, the Petitioner provides sufficient evidence establishing that news. tj and are 
major media in Tajikistan. Howev er, the Petitioner does not include the author of the news.tj 
screenshot and the author and title for the transcript, as requir ed under the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Furthermore, as it relates to the Petitioner previously submitted 
a screenshot from and a biographic page from the publication regarding its history . On 
motion, the Petitioner offers screenshots regarding top ten art icles for 2017 . The 
Petition er, however, does not demon strate that the screenshots show that is a professional 
or major trade publication or other major medium. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established 
that he meets the published materi al criterion. 
As it relates to judging, our previous decision found that the Petitioner 's evidence of "re fereeing" at 
four youth competitions in 2011 and 2012 did not sufficiently documen t his duties to demonstrate 
that he participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or alli ed field consistent with the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). In addition, the Petitioner did not show that he was 
qualified to referee in accordance with the requirements for umpir es specified in the 
Bylaws to the Constitution. 
On motion, the Petitioner offers documentation acknowledging his "profe ssional level of refereeing" 
at four additional events, two prior to the filing of his petition and two after. 4 In addi tion , the 
Petitioner provides certificates showing the awarding of his three from 2009 to 2012, and an 
3 On motion, the Petitioner docs not offer evidence or contest our determination regarding an artide published in 
Accordingly, we consider this claim to be abandoned. 
4 
The Petition"er must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § ,103.2(b)(1 ). 
3 
.
Matter of 1-A-
umpire certificate issued in March 2015 for "B" Classification. Finally, the Petitioner presents 
the Umpire Rules." 
According to the previously submitted bylaws, "[u]mpires who have a 
can only be a referee at the national toumaments." 5 The Petitioner's documentation 
offered on motion, however, indicates that he was a referee for international matches in Belarus, 
Kazakhstan, and Russia. In addition, his prior documentation shows him refereeing events in 
Kazakhstan and Russia. Moreover, while both the bylaws and umpire rules require 
individuals to be over 18 years old, the Petitioner's prior claims of refereeing in 2011 and 2012 
occurred when he was under the age of 18.6 In fact, the Petitioner obtained his umpire 
certificate in 2015 when he was still under the age of 18. The Petitioner did not demonstrate through 
documentary evidence how he was able to obtain an umpire certificate and referee international 
matches when he was not authorized by bylaws and umpire rules. The Petitioner did not 
resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner did· not establish that his experience as 'i referee is 
tantamount to a 'judge of the work of others." According to the umpire rules, there are varying 
degrees of responsibilities and positions of umpires and referees. For instance, "[t]he Jury President 
is the only official authorized to disqualify a competitor" and "is the supervisor of the match and the 
Referee." Moreover, "[t]he Jury Member shall supervise the match and the referees 
... and help the Jury President in checking the Judging Forms." Furthermore, "[t]he Center Referee 
is allowed to have authority to decide the winn~r by raising the red flag or blue flag when a draw 
occurs in the 'golden point' round." In addition, "[t]he Comer Referee shall register on the Sparring 
judging form for point(s), warning(s) and reduction point(s) of the competitors." Here, the 
Petitioner's documentation acknowledges his participation as a referee at events. However, the 
documentation does not establish what role he engaged in with each match and whether his 
participation resulted as a judge of the work of others consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), as opposed to merely enforcing the rules of fair play, sportsmanship, and etc. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the he meets the judging criterion. 
We further note that the Petitioner seeks a ~ighly restrictive visa classification, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward 
the top. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his recent awards arc indicative 
of the required sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Nor 
has he provided documentation demonstrating that his level of press coverage shows a "career of 
5 "A" classification is reserved for international umpires, and "[t)he can be applied for 
by the 4th and above holders who are over 25 years old and have participated in the 
endorsed by 
6 The Petitioner's date of birth is 1996. 
4 
Matter ofl-A-
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. I 01-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner's referee experience 
has garnered national or international acclaim in the field placing him in the small percentage at the 
very top of taekwondo. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(2). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's evidence on motion does not demonstrating his eligibility for the benefit sought, nor 
has he established that our previous decision was incorrect. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of 1-A-, ID# 1382630 (AAO June 14, 2018) 
5