dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

~dentifving data deletea to 
papvent dearly unwarraateil 
a *.- 
mwmwm of bcrsmal orfmm 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u 
2 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center. The director reopened the matter on the petitioner's motion, and denied the petition again. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On motion, counsel states that the petitioner "has met the requirements of a recognized national and international 
sports figure. Extensive documentation evidencing extraordinary ability has been submitted." 
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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on October 20, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a runner. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On motion, the director concluded that "the petitioner has received lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards." For example, in the 1997 Francophone Games the petitioner won the gold 
medal in the 5000 meters.' Published race results and letters of support from expert witnesses confirm the 
petitioner's receipt of prize medals at other national and international competitions. We concur with the 
director's finding that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in profesional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien 's work in theJieId for which classiJcation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order 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. An alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or fiom a publication in a language that most 
of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local 
community papers.2 
appearing in publications such as 
These articles briefly mention the petitioner as placing among the top finishers 
in a particular race event but they are not primarily about the petitioner. Further, there is no evidence showing 
that any of the publications submitted by the petitioner had significant national or international readership. 
On motion, the petitioner submitted additional articles appearing in Michigan Runner and The News-Register 
of Wheeling, West Virginia in 2004 and 2005. These local articles came into existence subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. 
 A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.2@)(12); see Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 1971). 
We find that the predominantly local articles submitted by the petitioner are not adequate to demonstrate that 
she has earned sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner has not established that she meets 
this criterion. 
1 
 Informational material submitted by the petitioner indicates that the Francophone Games "is a multi-sport and cultural 
event for French speaking nations." 
2 
 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 in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate she meets at 
least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 
Beyond the regulatory criteria, the petitioner submitted several "letters of recommendation." 
, Elite Athletic Coordinator for race events such as the Steamboat Classic 4 Mile Race in 
Peoria, Illinois, and the U.S. 10K Classic in Atlanta, Georgia, states: 
I have known [the petitioner] and [her spouse] since August of 2003, and I am thoroughly familiar 
with their running achievements. They both raced in one of the events for which I coordinate the elite 
field of runners - The U.S. 10K Classic, in Atlanta, Georgia in September 2003, 2004 and again in 
2005. They have both won numerous track and road races in the United States and have raced all 
over Europe as well as the U.S.A. 
[The petitioner] was the European Junior Champion at 3000m and World University Cross Country 
Champion in Spain 2002. She took part in 8 IAAF [International Association of Athletics 
Federations] World Cross Country Championships. . . . In the U.S.A. [the petitioner] has won more 
than fifty of the seventy races she has entered in the past two years. 
- Retired U.S. Team Olympic Coach for Women's Gymnastics, who identifies himself as "a 
personal friend" of the petitioner's former running coach in Romania, states: 
[The petitioner] has obtained two bronze medals at the European Junior Championships, a bronze 
medal at the 3000 meters European Championship in 1993 in San Sebastian, Spain and the gold 
medal at the 3000 meters European Championship in 1995 in Hungary. In 2002, [the petitioner] 
achieved the title of track and field University World Champion at the 2000 meters. 
Additional letters of recommendation repeat the preceding observations and discuss the petitioner's 
competitive results at various other local, national, and international races. While the letters of support 
submitted by the petitioner help to show that she meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(i), they fail to 
demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility under any of the remaining regulatory criteria. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), however, requires documentation meeting at least three of the ten criteria. The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act provides 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). The criteria require specific documentation beyond mere testimony, such 
as awards, published material about the alien, and evidence of a high salary. While letters of recommendation 
may place the evidence for the regulatory criteria in context, they cannot serve as primary evidence of the specific 
achievements required by the regulatory criteria. Further, while the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(4) permits 
"comparable evidence" where the ten criteria do not "readily apply" to the alien's occupation, the regulation 
neither states nor implies that letters of recommendation attesting to the alien's standing in the field are 
"comparable" to the strict documentation requirements in the regulations setting forth the ten   rite ria.^ 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her 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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 
 In the present case, there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be 
established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation.