dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
orevent cleci l y ucw rmn t ed 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
avmion of personal privacy 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
IN RE: 
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. 8 1 1 53(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
u 
vohn F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be summarily 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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted clear 
evidence that he would continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(5). 
On appeal, counsel states: "The determination that the petitioner failed to establish that he has 
received any lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or awards for excellence in the 
field is so arbitrary that event award from continental games (Aisan [sic] Games) that were 
participated by 44 nations is not counted!" 
We find that the director properly considered the evidence submitted and appropriately addressed the 
evidence and arguments in his decision. Accordingly, we concur with the director's finding that the 
petitioner does not meet the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(i). In addressing the 
petitioner's lplace diploma from the 14" Asian Games in 2002, the director's decision stated: 
The Service . . . requested evidence regarding the nature of the particular competitions 
including the competition level and the organization that sponsored/arranged the 
competitions. In response, the petitioner provided information from Wikipedia regarding the 
2002 Asian Games . . . . 
Upon review, the record fails to establish that the petitioner has received any lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prize or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Most 
notably, the petitioner has failed to provide evidence that establishes the stature and prestige 
of his awards. While the petitioner provided information regarding the 2002 Asian Games 
and the 2004 World Amateur San Da Championships, this evidence does not establish the 
significance of the respective awards won at the competitions. Moreover, the petitioner did 
not win a top prize at the - as he placed minhis respective weight class. 
Further, it is readily apparent that the San Da Championships in which the petitioner 
participated was an amateur event. In fact, several of the recommendation letters submitted 
with the petition indicate that the petitioner competes in amateur kick boxing. This does not 
support a finding that the petitioner has won prizes or awards at the highest level of kick 
boxing. 
Page 3 
With regard to the information about the 2002 Asian Games from Wikipedia, there are no assurances 
about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.' See Lamilem Badasa v. 
Michael Mukasey, No. 07-2276 (gth Cir. August 29, 2008). Accordingly, we will not assign weight 
to information for which Wikipedia is the only cited source. Nevertheless, as noted by the director, 
the petitioner laced 5th in his respective weight class. The record does not establish that the 
petitioner's 
 lace diploma constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
4 
Counsel further states: 
Similarly, the finding that the evidence does not establish that the petitioner has sustained 
national or international acclaim is also arbitrary. The petitioner has been on national team 
and represented Mongolia in many international competitions including in United States 
clearly indicate the level of his national and international acclaim. 
Detailed brief and evidence will be submitted directly to AAO in 30 days. 
The petitioner's involvement in national and international competitions was thoroughly discussed by 
the director under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The appellate submission was 
unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the remaining regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3). Further, the appellate submission does not address the director's finding that the 
petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he would continue to work in his area of expertise. See 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(5). 
Counsel indicated that a brief andfor evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The 
appeal was filed on June 2, 2008. As of this date, more than nine months later, the AAO has 
received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned 
fails to identi@ specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
- 
' Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GURANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative 
encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource 
of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. 
Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required 
to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikpedia cannot guarantee the validity of 
the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or 
altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http:llen.wikipedia.or~~wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on March 9, 2009, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.