dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 5, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wrestling coach, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, or even assert, that he met at least three of the ten initial evidence requirements, and 
did not document his intent to continue working in his area of expertise. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, including a job offer, and cites two criteria to 
which the record materials relate. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially 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 
.
Matter ofG-M-
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. Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as 
awards, published material in certain media , and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USC!S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). 1 
This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the '·truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of 
evidence for relevance , probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of 
the totality of the evidence , to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Maffer l?{ 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) explains the prospective job requirements for this 
classification: 
No qffer qf employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United 
States nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however. 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. Such evidence may include letter(s) from 
prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts , or 
a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue 
his or her work in the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a former wrestler and current wrestling coach. He initially provided letters. award 
certificates, and news articles without referencing the regulatory criteria. The Director issued a 
notice of intent to deny (NOID), which noted that the Petitioner had not identified the criteria to 
which his submission pertained and expressly requested specific items under each possible criterion. 
The Petitioner's response focused on his future plans and included letters and information about 
asserting that he assisted in the preparation for this event. The Director concluded that 
the record did not sufficiently address at least three criteria and raised concerns about the translations 
of the foreign language materials. He further determined that the Petitioner had not sufficiently 
supported his intent to continue working in his area of expertise and, thus, that he would 
substantially benefit the United States prospectively . 
1 
This case discusses a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then , if fulfilling the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a 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). 
2 
.
Matter ofG-M-
On appeal, the Petitioner discusses two criteria, of which he must satisfy at least three. He provides 
copies ofthe awards, official wrestling results, and a job otTer. We have reviewed all of the exhibits 
the Petitioner has presented and will address those criteria he has identified or for which he has 
submitted relevant and probative evidence. For the reasons enumerated below, while he has now 
documented his future plans as a wrestling coach, he has not supplied the requisite initial evidence 
for the classification sought. 
A. Intent upon Entry 
The Petitioner has now presented evidence relating to his future intentions in the United States. See 
section 203(b )(1 )(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Specifically, co-owner 
of the in New Jersey, has offered the Petitioner a full-time wrestling coach 
position at that location. This letter satisfies the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 2 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field (~f endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record contains several award certificates at the cadet, junior, and senior level in Georgia and 
elsewhere. For example, the Petitioner finished third in a cadet competition in Albania in 2005, third 
at the tournament in in 2009, and second at two events in India in 2011. 
Contrary to the Director's statement in the denial, the initial submission did include official 
translations of these certificates. Accordingly, he has documented several awards. 
As noted in the NOID, however, the Petitioner must also provide information about the national or 
international recognition of the awards and their significance. president of the 
attests that the Petitioner was previously on the 
and was a "champion and prizeman of or 
tournaments in does not discuss the 
significance of any specific competition. The Petitioner also offered event results published in 
various newspapers. The record does not correlate these reports with the certificates. For example, 
an article in in 2007 describes a competition where he finished second in the · category, 
but there is no certificate from 2007. Moreover, the record lacks evidence regarding the circulation 
or distribution of any of the newspapers, some of which the translator did not identify. On appeal, 
he presented his results as posted on website. This information verities 
that he finished third at the senior level at the tournament in 2011. third 
at the junior level at the and the in 2008. and third 
2 Most of the evidence relates to the Petitioner's history as a wrestler, with some evidence of his experience as a coach. 
As he has not demonstrated extraordinary ability as an athlete, however, we will not analyze whether coaching falls 
within his area of expertise. 
.
Matter ofG-M-
as a cadet at the in 2005. The Petitioner, however, did not corroborate the 
significance of the website and the competition results it posts. For all of 
the above reasons, he has not sufficient documented that his awards are national or internationally 
recognized. 
Published materials 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted several articles; however, they do not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
First, they are not about him. Rather, all but one reports on the results of a competition. The remaining 
item discusses his father's interest in wrestling as a wrestler and a father of wrestlers. Moreover. the 
Director advised the Petitioner in the NOID that he must document that any material about him 
appeared in professional, major trade publications, or other major media. The NOlO suggested that he 
might provide circulation data to satisfy this requirement, however, the response did not address this 
concern and the record in general does not contain sut1icient information to establish that the articles 
appeared in the requisite types of publications or media. For all of the above reasons. the Petitioner has 
not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role .fhr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
While the Petitioner did not specifically address this criterion, we note the submission of several 
reference letters. These, however, mostly praise his professionalism and talent in general tenns without 
identifying how he performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation. For example, a member of the 
describes the Petitioner as a "hardworking, initiative [sic], qualified, conscientious and respectable 
person." Some letters include more precise information, but are still insutlicient to demonstrate the 
nature of his roles. a head coach for the 
affirms that the Petitioner "had also a success with his new cadet's team at the 
in 2016," but does not offer any details regarding the team's achievements while primarily 
under his tutelage. Similarly, states generally that the Petitioner "worked diligently to 
find the most productive tactics to lead the team to success.'' These letters do not establish. however, 
that his role was a leading or critical one for a team with a distinguished reputation. 
does not explain the significance of coaching a cadet team. 
another head coach for the atlirms that 
the Petitioner is the personal coach for his brother, who participated in the 2012 
and won a the following year. The Petitioner has not offered his 
coaching credentials or any other evidence confirming that he played a critical role for a 
during the and The definitive registration fmm in 
the record lists as a competitor at the 2016 and the Petitioner as 
4 
.
Matter ofG-M-
one of three coaches, but does not reflect his specific responsibilities for an organization or 
establishment at that event. a in the United States. contends that the 
Petitioner "has been very beneficial to my athletic career.'' She does not describe his function for a 
qualifying entity. While he submitted materials about the event in 
involving a matchup between the United States and Japan, he did not document his role in supporting 
this tournament or clarify its nature. 
The record does not verify the total number of coaches for the various levels of or 
explain the hierarchy of the coaching staff. Notably, the Petitioner has oflered letters from two different 
coaches in Georgia suggesting a significant coaching staff The record also lacks 
corroboration of his impact on the success of the As noted above, while 
indicates the has fielded athletes at the there is no 
verification that the Petitioner attended the games as a credentialed coach. For these reasons, he has not 
satisfied this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
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 need not fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits 
determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 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 classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-M-, ID# 945675 (AAO Oct. 5, 2017) 
5