dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27. 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a speed skater and coach. seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)( I )(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 Form 1-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary met any of the ten initial 
evidentiary criteria. of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he meets three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(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 111 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 tield of endeavor.'' 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets fmih two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
.
Malfer qfS-L-
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 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). 
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 r. USCJS, 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): Rijalv. USCIS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. 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." Maller o{Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 I 0) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a speed skater and coach . As the Petitioner has not 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). The Director held that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of these criteria. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asse11s that he meets the following criteria: awards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), original contributions under 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(J)(v), and leading or critical role at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). For the reasons discussed below , the record does not support a tinding 
that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
Documentation l?{the alien 's receipt of lesser national(y or internationally recognized pri::es 
or awards for excellence in the field of' endeavor. 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(h)(3 )(i). 
The Petitioner submitted certificates indicating that he received tirst place in a number of races in the 
the and the in the 
Ukraine between 2003 and 2015. On appeal, the Petitioner submits no new evidence to establish 
that these events received national or international recognition , a concern noted by the Director. ln 
addition , the record does not contain corroborating evidence , such as the official results of these 
competitions, to establish the Petitioner's receipt of the awards. Therefore. the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
2 
.
Matter ofS-L-
Evidence of the alien's original scienlf(ic. scholar(v. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions ofmajor sign~ficance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion due to his ability as a speed skating coach to 
modify the skates with the proper bend of the blade to enable skaters to maintain their speed \vhen 
taking sharp turns. The record contains several letters from members of the 
indicating that the Petitioner's coaching and btade preparation helped the team 
members set personal records in the m in 2016. The 
record contains two letters from the General Secretary of the 
who states that the Petitioner ''has incredible skills concerning skates adjustment 
and sharpening tor short-track and making of special shoes" and that these abilities helped improve the 
time of the in the in 2016. 
These letters do not state that the Petitioner's contributions have had an overarching impact in the 
tield of speed skating. The record does not contain additional evidence indicating that others in the 
field are utilizing the Petitioner's blade-shaping method. While we acknowledge that the 
Petitioner's expertise and technical abilities appear to have made a difference for the members of the 
in 2016, the record does not support a finding that this amounts to 
original contributions of major significance in the field. Therefore. he has not demonstrated that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence /hat the alien has performed in a leadin~ or critical role fhr organizations or 
establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through the 
role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the Beneficiary's impact on the 
organization or the establishment's activities. The Petitioner's performance in this role should establish 
\Vhether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. 
The letters from state that the Petitioner was on the 
for more than 14 years. However, the record does not explain the relationship between the 
and the Beyond the testimonial letters 
from the record does not contain corroborating evidence regarding the nature and 
length of the Petitioner's tenure with The record also lacks 
evidence supporting claims regarding the Petitioner's participation as a skater or 
coach in the and the 
states that in his "last years of active sports [the Petitioner] was spending a lot of time 
improving technical and tactical skills in Short Track" and he was "an active worker as a coach of the 
indicates that the Petitioner has over ten years of experience in the 
"professional preparation of blades" and that the latest example of him utilizing this expe11ise occurred 
in 2016, as noted above. where the Petitioner's blade work assisted tour members of the 
in setting personal best records in their races. While we acknowledge the 
Matter ofS-L-
positive impact the Petitioner appears to have had on the team members, the evidence in the record does 
not demonstrate that his role constituted a leading or critical role. Therefore, the Petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
III. 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 materials 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 the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o{S-L-. ID# 926509 (AAO Feb. 27, 2018) 
4