dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-H-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 12.2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a bridge player, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. S'ee Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(I )(A). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(I )(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal. the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief. contending that he satislies 
at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 ticld 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. 
Matter c1(S-H-
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 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 ofthe field of endeavor. See Kazarian r. USCJS. 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 tina! merits determination): see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126. 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013 ): Rijal 1·. U.S CIS, 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. 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 ofChawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a professional bridge player who has competed in tournaments around the world. 
Because he 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 only met two criteria: awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) and judging under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets one additional criterion: published material under 
8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 1 We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least 
three criteria. 
1 
While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the criteria pertaining to original contributions under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). he does not continue to do so on appeal. nor does the 
record support a finding that he meets them. Accordingly. we will not further address these criteria in our decision. 
2 
.
Matter ofS-H-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt o{lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
award~·.fhr excellence in the field l~{endeavor. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(i). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record indicates that he twice 
received the which is awarded annually to Canada's top \Vinner. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner demonstrated that he satisfies this criterion, and we concur with the 
Director's findings for this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in pro{essional or mqjor trade puhlications or other major 
media. relatin?, to the alien's work in thefieldfhr which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author ofthe material. and any necesswy translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(iii). 
The Petitioner argues that an article entitled, ' in 
meets this criterion. Although the Petitioner is named twice in the article as one of the 
defenders, the article is about a defensive play at the tournament in 
Louisiana. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See. e.g. 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin. 2:07-CV -820-ECR-RJ.J at * 1. *7 (0. Nev. Sept. 8. 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that he provided numerous articles from 
The record contains three articles from this publication, but they are not about him, as required. 
Specifically, the 2013 article pertains to the where the Petitioner is 
identified one time as one of the participants. Further, while the Petitioner is mentioned in the 
2014 article as playing a "declarer'' move, the article is about the 2014 
Moreover, the 2015 article relates to the 
in which the Petitioner is cited as one of numerous other players and it includes a 
photograph of seven bridge players with a caption listing the Petitioner as one of them. Articles that 
simply mention the Petitioner as one of the players in a competition without a discussion regarding 
him and his work in the field arc not indicative of published material about him. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that is a professional or major trade 
publication or other major medium. The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
. managing editor, who claimed that '"distributes to its 168.000 
members worldwide" and "has the widest circulation of any contract bridge publication and is 
considered one of the preeminent bridge magazines." however, did not reference any 
source information or provide comparative statistical data to supp01i her claims. users need not 
rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos. No. CV 06 5105 SJO 
(C. D. CA July 6, 2007) qff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9111 Cir. 2009) (concluding that self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliable evidence of major 
media). 
3 
.
Matter (!{S-H-
The record contains similar materiaL such as articles in and 
where the Petitioner is credited in a photograph or is listed as a participant but does not reflect 
published material about him consistent with this regulatory criterion. Furthermore. many of the 
articles do not contain the author of the material as required. In addition. the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate they were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence o(lhe alien ·s participation . either individually or on a panel. as a judge o(fhe work ol 
others in the same or an allied.field of'spec?ficationfor which classification is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. The record. however. does not 
support that finding. At the initial filing of the petition, the Petitioner asserted that he '·served on 
numerous appeal committees in Regional and National tournaments.·· In support of this claim. he 
provided two recommendation letters from professional bridge players, as well as a letter fi"om the 
CEO of These letters generally state that the Petitioner serves on appeals 
committees and they describe the associated judging duties of such a role. However, they do not 
provide information identifying any tournament in which the Petitioner has held this role. nor do 
they explain the basis of their knowledge regarding his past service as a judge of others. For 
example, professional bridge player stated: 
[The Petitioner" s] good reputation is also demonstrated by the fact that he is 
sometimes asked to serve on appeals committees. In these committees [the 
Petitioner] judges the actions of his competitors and the Tournament Director's 
Ruling. As part of this committee he uses his expert opinion to decide whether to 
uphold the table ruling or ove11urn it. 
Moreover, in response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a Jetter from 
that explained the role of individuals on appeals committees, but did not indicate that 
the Petitioner ever served on the committees. Furthermore. the Petitioner asserted that "[t]here are 
no official records of [him] acting as a member of an Appeals Committee:· In addition . he averred 
that "members· names are not published. nor are they showcased in any way.'' Without further 
infom1ation or documentation to support the above statements , we find the submitted testimonial 
evidence insufficient to establish the Petitioner's participation as a judge of others in his field. 
Accordingly. we withdraw 
the Director's finding for this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result. we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in 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. For the 
4 
Matter ofS-H-
foregoing reasons. the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS'-H-. 10# 982973 (AAO Feb. 12. 2018) 
5