dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
• . , U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
I yM8 Ê8ÍS deleted t AdministrativeAPpealsOffice(AAO)
O 20 MassachusettsAve.. N.w., MS2090
pTeVentClearlyunwaTranted wash»st ¤C20s292090
mvasionor°*rM omacy U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigratiOn
Services
PUBUCCOPY
DATE: JAN 2 3 2012 Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasanAlienof ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(l)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
[NSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishtohaveconsidered,youmayfile amotiontoreconsideror amotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcasebyfiling aFormI-290B,Noticeof AppealorMotion,
with a fee of $630. Pleasebe awarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatany motionmustbefiled
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petitionandreaffirmedthatdecisiononmotion. Thematteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppeals
Office(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationasan"alienof extraordinaryability" in athletics,pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of the Immigrationand NationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)in the
athletics.' Thedirectordeterminedthepetitionerhadnot establishedtherequisiteextraordinaryability
andfailedto submitextensivedocumentationof hissustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act; and
8C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3);seealso H.R. 723 101" Cong., 2d Sess.59 (1990). The implementing
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencanestablishsustainednationalor international
acclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a major,internationallyrecognizedaward.
Absentthe receiptof such an award,the regulationoutlinesten categoriesof specificobjective
evidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermustsubmitqualifyingevidenceunder
atleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establishthebasiceligibility requirements.
On appeal,the petitionersubmitsa brief and additionaldocumentaryevidence.For the reasons
discussedbelow,the AAO upholdsthe director'sultimatedeterminationthat the petitionerhasnot
establishedhiseligibilityfor theclassificationsought.
I. Law
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswhoare
aliensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Aliens with extraordinaryability. -- An alienis describedin this subparagraphif --
(i) the alien has extraordinaryability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedby sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the
fieldthroughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continueworkin theareaof
extraordinaryability,and
1Withintheinitial filing brief,counselstates, mightbedirectlybeneficialto USeconomybecause
hewill betheUSsinger.Further,hewantsto runa musicschoolin future[sic] andteachWushuto theUS
Citizenandalsomightbeverybeneficialto USemployerswhohavebeenengagingWushutrainingschool."
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasas aliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101" Cong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Id.;
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthe petitionerdemonstratethe alien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof his or herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(thatis,a major,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof thefollowing ten categoriesof
evidence.
(i) Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognized
prizesor awardsfor excellencein thefieldof endeavor;
(ii) Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin the field for which
classificationis sought,which requireoutstandingachievementsof their members,as
judgedby recognizednationalor intemationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesor fields;
(iii) Publishedmaterialaboutthe alienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto the alien'swork in the field for which classificationis
sought.Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andany
necessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor on apanel,asajudgeof
theworkof othersin thesameor analliedfield of specializationfor whichclassification
issought;
(v) Evidenceof the alien'soriginalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(vi) Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesinthefield,inprofessionalor
majortradepublicationsorothermajormedia;
(vii) Evidenceof the displayof the alien'swork in the field at artisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
Page4
(viii) Evidencethatthealienhasperformedin aleadingor criticalrolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
(ix) Evidencethatthe alienhascommandeda high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationtoothersin thefield;or
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin the performingarts,asshownby box office
receiptsor record,cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filed underthis classification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d 1115(9thCir. 2010).Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion With respect to the criteria at
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraisedlegitimate
concernsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcerns
shouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
The courtstatedthat theAAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof the initial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureisto countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"final meritsdetermination"asthecorollaryto
thisprocedure:
If a petitionerhas submittedthe requisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha "levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof
that small percentagewho haverisento the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),and"thatthealienhassustainednationalor internationalacclaim
and that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise."
8C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhoseachievementshave gamered"sustained
national or internationalacclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinaryability" visa.
8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id. at 1119-20.
Thus,Kazariansetsforth atwo-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In reviewingServiceCenterdecisions,theAAO will
applythetestsetforth in Kazarian. As theAAO maintainsdenovoreview,theAAO will conducta
2 Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterallyimposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyondthose set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
newanalysisif thedirectorreachedhis or herconclusionby usinga one-stepanalysisratherthanthe
two-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazariancourt. See8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(iv);Soltanev.DOJ, 381
F.3d143,145(3dCir.2004);SpencerEnterprises,Inc.v. UnitedStates,229F.Supp.2d 1025,1043
(E.D.Cal.200l), aff'd,345F.3d683(9thCir.2003)(recognizingtheAAO'sdenovoauthority).
IL Analysis
A. Evidentiary Criteria
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationally or internationally recognizedprizes or
awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
This criterioncontainsseveralevidentiaryrequirementsthepetitionermustaddress.First,pursuant
to the plain regulatorylanguage,the alienmustbe the recipientof theprizesor the awards(in the
plural). The next requirementis that the evidenceestablishesthat the prizesor the awardsare
nationallyor internationallyrecognized. The final requirementrelatesto the criteria requiredto
receive the award, which would indicate if the issuing entity basestheir award selectionon
excellencein thepetitioner'sfield of endeavor.Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of
theseelementsto meettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
The petitionerclaims that the following awardssatisfy the plain languagerequirementsof this
criterion:a 1996certificateof participationfrom the WushuFederationof Asia for the 4thAsian
WushuChampionship;a certificateof appreciationfrom the Olympic Councilof Asia for the 13th
Asian Gamesin Thailandin 1998;a certificateof participationfrom the InternationalKarate-Do
Goju-KaiAssociationin 2001;thegoldmedalfor theAll NepalOpenKick BoxingChampionshipin
1995;thecentralregiongold medalfor theNationalWushuChampionshipin 1995;andthe central
regionsilver medalfor the NationalWushuChampionshipin 1994. The directordeterminedthe
petitionerfailedto meettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
Certificatesof participationarenotequalto prizesor awards.Participatingin acompetitiondoesnot
reflectanylevel of excellencein thefield andconsequentlythesecertificatesdo not meettheplain
languagerequirementsof "prizesor awards"within the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In
referenceto the remainingclaimedprizesor awards,counsel'sappealbrief indicatesthe director
gaveno considerationto the evidenceandthat two forms of evidenceestablishthat theseawardsare
nationally or internationallyrecognized. The first form of evidenceis a letter from
GeneralSecretaryof the NepalWushuAssociation. This letter delineatesthe selection
methodfor Wushu players in Nepal. The secondform of evidenceis a chart reflecting the
progressionof athletesin Wushu from district to nationallevel players. While theseforms of
evidencemight indicate that national Wushu players are comprisedfrom a national pool of
candidates,they fail to establishthatanyof theawardson recordreceivednationalor international
3Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto theregulatorycategoriesof evidence
notdiscussedin thisdecision.
Page6
recognition. The petitioner provides no evidenceestablishinghis awards are nationally or
internationallyrecognized.
Thus,the petitionerhasnot submittedevidencethat meetsthe plain languagerequirementsof this
criterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which classification is
sought, which require outstanding achievementsof their members,as judged by recognized
national or international expertsin their disciplinesorfields.
This criterion containsseveralevidentiaryelementsthe petitionermustestablish. The first is that
thereareassociations(in theplural) in thepetitioner'sfield thatconsistof formalmembership.The
secondrequirementisthatthepetitioneris or wasamemberof theseassociations.Thethird element
is thattheassociationsrequireoutstandingachievements(in theplural)asaconditionof admittance.
The final requirementis that admittanceis judged,or adjudicated,by nationallyor internationally
recognizedexpertsin their field whodetermineif theaforementionedoutstandingachievementsare
sufficientfor admission.
Thepetitionerclaimseligibility for this criterionbasedon membershipwith two associations;The
World Kuo Shu Federationand the World United Martial Arts Federation-Nepal.The director
determinedthepetitionerfailedto meettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
The petitioner's club is a memberof The World Kuo Shu Federation. As evidencethat this
associationrequires outstandingachievementsof their members,asjudgedby recognizednationalor
internationalexperts,thepetitionerprovidesthe"About Us" webpageprintoutfrom this association.
Althoughthe printoutindicatesthe associationwas foundedby an expert,the recordcontainsno
evidenceof the membershiprequirementsfor this association.As the recorddoesnot containthe
bylawsor other official documentationof the association'smembershipcriteria,the AAO cannot
evaluatewhetherthepetitioner'smembershipin thisassociationmeetstheplainlanguagerequirements
of thiscriterion. Additionally,thewebpageprintoutstates,"Currently[December29,2008],thereare
morethan 60 group membersin T.W.K.S.F.[The World Kuo Shu Federation] Any qualifying
organization- includingschools,associationsandfederations- mayjoin andparticipatein T.W.K.S.F
activities" Thisassociationisnotonethatrestrictsits membershiprollsto onlythosewith outstanding
achievements.The evidencethe petitionerpresentsfails to establishthat acceptanceinto this
associationis judgedor adjudicatedby nationallyor internationallyrecognizedexpertsin the field.
While the evidencedoesreferto the executivecommittee,it falls shortof identifyingthe caliberof
thosewhograntmembership.
It is importantto note that the petitioner'sclub is a memberof The World Kuo Shu Federation.
Counsel'sbrief in supportof themotionto reopenassertsthatthis"groupmembership"in TheWorld
Kuo Shu Federationqualifies under the regulation. Counsel'sposition is unsupported. The
unsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.at
533,534n.2(BIA 1988);Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.1,3 n.2(BIA 1983);Matterof Ramirez-
Page7
Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).Additionally,thecertificatefromthisorganizationclearly
indicatesthat the "Eng Yang Kung Fu Club" hasbeenacceptedasa groupmember. This "group
membership"conceptis not reflectedin the plain languageof the regulation. USCIS may not
unilaterallyimposenovelsubstantiveor evidentiaryrequirementsbeyondthosesetforthat8C.F.R.
§ 204.5.Kazarian,596F.3dat 1221,citingLoveKoreanChurchv. Chertoff'549F.3d749,758(9th
Cir.2008).Consequently,thismembershipisnotaqualifyingone.
A letterfrom thistimeasGeneralSecretaryof theWorldUnitedMartialArtsFederation-
Nepal,providesthat the petitioneris a technicalmemberof this association. letter
furtherprovidesthatthecriteriafor technicalmembershipare"thatonemusthavecompleteknowledge,
trainingandunderstandingof Martial Art [sic] andbasedon suchunderstandingmusthaveattained
nationalrecognitionandhaveplayedat leasttwo nationalchampionships,after substantialyearsof
trainingeducationandtraining[sic]in martialart[sic]." Thisletterestablishesthatmembershipwithin
thisassociationis basedon outstandingachievementsof its membersatthetechnicallevel. However,
letterdoesnot statewhetheradmittanceis judged,or adjudicated,by nationallyor
internationallyrecognizedexpertsin their field. As a result,this membershipcannotmeetthe plain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Thus,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidencethatmeetsthiscriterion.
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major
media, relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classification is sought. Suchevidence
shall includethe title, date,andauthor of thematerial, andany necessarytranslation.
In orderto meettherequirementsof thiscriterion,thepublishedmaterialmustprimarilybeaboutthe
petitionerandthe contentsmustrelateto the petitioner'swork in the field underwhich he or she
seeksclassificationasan immigrant. The publishedmaterialmustalsoappearin professionalor
major trade publicationsor other major media (in the plural). Professionalor major trade
publicationsareintendedfor expertsin thefield or in the industry. To qualify asmajormedia,the
publicationshouldhavesignificantnationaldistributionandbepublishedin a predominantnational
language.Thefinal requirementis thatthepetitionerprovideeachpublisheditem's title, date,and
authorand if the publisheditem is in a foreignlanguage,the petitionermustprovidea translation
thatcomplieswith therequirementsfoundat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).
Thepetitionersubmitsseveralarticlesasevidenceunderthis criterion. Thedirectordeterminedthe
petitionerfailedto meettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
The article titled, nominatedas Chief of NWA," was purportedly published in the
KathmanduPost. This articleis not primarilyaboutthe titioner. Thename within thetitle
refersto "the first martial art coachof the country, not the petitioner. The
petitioneris mentionedin passingwithin onesentencein the the article. The article is
clearly not aboutthepetitioneror relatedto his work in his field. Counsel'sinitial filing brief asserts
this articleis publishedin theKathmanduPost;however,this informationcannotbe ascertained
Page8
from theevidenceonrecord. As aresult,theAAO cannotdetermineif thearticleappearedin oneof
the requiredpublicationtypes. This article fails to meetthe plain languagerequirementsof this
enterion.
Thematerialtitled, "Asian GamesCountdown,"appearedin TheRisingNepal,Kathmandu.While
this articledoesappearin a publication,it doesnot constitutepublishedmaterialthat is aboutthe
petitionerandhis work in thefield. Thematerialconsistsof asinglesentenceandaphotographwith
biographicalinformation. Thepetitioner'sphotographandbiographicalinformationis interspersed
with five otherparticipantsselectedfor the 13thAsianGames.This itemis not aboutthepetitioner;
it is aboutthe groupof NepaleseWushuplayersappearmgat an upcomingcompetition. Theonly
referencewithin the recordrelatedto this publicationis counsel'sassertionthat it "is the first and
foremostnationalsheetandoneandonly governmentown [sic] daily Englishnewspaperof Nepal."
Counselprovidesno evidenceto supporthis assertions. Going on record without supporting
documentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof meetingthe burden of proof in these
proceedings.Matter of Soffici,22 I&N Dec. 158, 165(Comm'r 1998)(citing Matter of Treasure
Craft of California. 14 I&N Dec. 190(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Consequently,the petitionerhas
failedto provideevidenceto establishthisis a qualifyingpublicationunderthisregulatorycriterion.
The article titled, "Our WushuPlayersParticipantsof Asaid," waspublishedin the Gokhapatra
newspaper. The article's title servesas the initial indication that the article is not about the
petitioner.Thearticleis aboutWushuasa sportandmentionsthepetitionerin additionto five other
players. Moreover,the petitionerdid not providea full Englishtranslationrequiredpursuantto
8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3);heprovidedan"Extractfrom Gokhapatra."Thetranslationreflectsageneral
paragraphabouttheWushusportandtheinformationrelatedto thepetitioner,but omitsthecontent
relatedto theotherWushuplayers.Theregulationrequiresthat,"Any documentcontainingforeign
languagesubmittedto USCISshallbeaccompaniedby afull Englishlanguagetranslationwhichthe
translatorhascertifiedascompleteandaccurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthatheor sheis
competentto translatefrom the foreign languageinto English." (Emphasisadded.)8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(3). As a result, summarytranslationsare not consideredsufficient to meet the
requirementsof the regulation. As this evidenceis insufficientto meetthe appropriateevidentiary
requirements,it will notbeconsideredunderthiscriterionor within thefinal meritsdetermination.
Additionally, the petitionerprovidesevidencefrom a website,groundreport.com,to establishthat
thispublicationqualifiesasmajormedia.ThiswebsiteprovidesthattheGorkhapatrahasmillions
of readersin Nepalbut fails to provideanystatisticsto reflectthepaper'scirculationor distribution
datato indicateif thepublicationis localor nationalin scale.Thepetitioneralsofails to provideany
additionalevidencerelatedto thedistributiondataof theGorkhapatrato establishthatthispublished
materialhasa nationalratherthana localor aregionalreachwithin Nepal. Publicationswith only a
localor a regionalreacharenot consideredto bemajormediaandthepetitionerhasnot established
thispublicationis a professionalor majortradejournal asrequiredby theregulation.This evidence
failsto meettheplainlanguagerequirementsof theregulation.
Page9
The article titled, "First UMA [World Martial Arts AssociationNepal] Wushu Title to Young
Hearts,"appearsin Times. Counselfails to identify this articlewithin anybriefsandthepetitioner
fails to provide evidencerelatedto this publication. As a result, this article cannotmeet the
requirementof this criterion that the articleappearin a professionalor major tradepublicationor
otherform of major media. More importantly,this article,asthetitle clearlyindicates,is aboutthe
inauguralWushuchampionships;it is not aboutthepetitioner.Thearticlementionsthepetitioneras
oneof 16competitionofficials. This is insufficientto establishthatthearticleis aboutthepetitioner
andhis work in the field. In addition,this article's translationfails to includethe dateand the
material'sauthor. Regardingthe date,the translationprovides,"September22," but lacksthe year
the article appearedin the publication. In referenceto the author,the translationsimply states,
"TimesReporter." Theseadditionaldeficienciesestablishthatthis translationfails to complywith
this criterion's explicit requirements. As this evidenceis insufficient to meet the appropriate
evidentiaryrequirements,it will not be consideredunderthis criterion or within the final merits
determination.
The article titled, "Wushu a popularsportin Dolakhadespiteof too manydifficulties [sic]," was
publishedin the Kantipur newspaper.While this article containsa few quotesattributedto the
petitioner,it is not primarily aboutthe petitioner. The article reflectsthe difficulties of the new
Wushusportin this Nepaliregion. Again,thetranslationof thisarticlefails to indicatethearticle's
author,merelyproviding,"KantipurReporter." In referenceto this newspaperqualifyingasmajor
media,the petitionerprovidescirculationstatisticsfrom the Kantipur web site. While this self-
servingcirculationdataindicatesthat the Kantipur hasa daily circulationfigure of 250,000,the
recordlacksevidenceof thispublication'sdistributiondatato determineif thepublicationis localor
national in scale.The petitioner also fails to provide any additional evidencerelated to the
distributiondataof the Kantipur to establishthis publicationhasa nationalratherthana local or a
regionalreachwithin Nepal. Publicationswith only a localor aregionalreacharenot consideredto
bemajormediaandthepetitionerhasnot establishedthatthis publicationis a professionalor major
tradejournal asrequiredby the regulation. While this evidencefails to meetthe plain language
requirementsof theregulation,theAAO will considerit within thefinal meritsdetermination.
The article titled, "Difficulty to the Instructor,"was publishedin the Samacharpatranewspaper.
Similarto theabovearticlepublishedin theKantipurnewspaper,thisarticleis aboutthedifficulties
the Wushusport encounteredin the Dolakhadistrict. Consequently,this article experiencesthe
samedeficienciesastheabovearticlein thatit is not aboutthepetitionerandhis work in thefield,
the translationprovidesno namedauthor,and the petitionerhas failed to provide evidenceto
establishthat this publicationqualifiesasa professionalor majortradepublicationor othermajor
media. Althoughcounsel'sinitial brief indicatesthispublication"is awidelycirculatedNepalidaily
newspaper,"aspreviouslystated,counsel'sassertionsarenot sufficientto meettheburdenof proof
in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of
Cahfornia, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Consequently,the petitionerhasfailed to provideevidenceto
establishthisis aqualifyingpublicationunderthisregulatorycriterion.
Page10
Thearticle,"Popularityof WushuSportin Dolakha,"waspublishedin theSagarmathanewspaper.
This article's translationfails to complywith the plain languagerequirementof this criterion,that
the translationidentify the author. This article is aboutthe popularityof the Wushusportin the
Dolakhadistrict. While thepetitionermaybemoreprominentwithin this article,it still falls shortof
meetingthe regulatoryrequirementof beingabouthim. As the article'stitle reflects,the topic of
this articleis therising levelof popularityof this sportwithin this regionof Nepal. Therecordlacks
any evidenceof the circulation or the distribution statisticsrelatedto this newspaperand the
petitionerhasfailed to establishthat this newspaperis a form of major media. As a result,this
articleis insufficientto contributeto thepetitionerestablishingeligibility underthiscriterion.
Counsel'sinitial filing brief claimsthatthepetitioner'snameappearsin a tournamentbooklet,and
that this qualifiesunderthis regulatorycriterion. The bookletlists the petitionerasa judge at the
2008U.S. InternationalKuo ShuChampionshipTournament.Thepetitioneris not the primaryor
evena subordinatetopic within this booklet. As a result,this bookletis deficientrelatedto this
criterion'smostimportantelement;thatthepublishedmaterialbeaboutthepetitioner.Furthermore,
printedmaterialis not necessarilypublishedmaterial. Inclusionin aprintedin atournamentbooklet
is not equalto publishedmaterialabouteveryoneof thenamedparticipantsin oneof the required
publicationtypes. Thesebookletsareintendedto memorializethecompetition'sparticipantsrather
thanbeing"publishedmaterial. . . in professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia."
See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). TheAAO cannotconcludethata competitionbooklet,which is not
the resultof independentmediareportingandwhich is distributedor soldat a sportscompetition,
meetstheplain languageof thisregulatorycriterion.
Thepetitionersubmitsa biographicalpagecontaininghis informationin additionto the information
of five other individuals. This biographicalpagederivesfrom a souvenirbooklet from the 13th
AsianGames.Thepetitionerhasnotprovidedanyevidencethatbookletsof thistypeareconsidered
one of the qualifying publications. As previouslystated,thesetypesof bookletsare intendedto
memorializethecompetition'sparticipantsratherthanbeing"publishedmaterial. . . in professional
or major trade publicationsor other major media." See8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Also as
previouslystated,simple inclusionin a printedin a tournamentbookletis not equalto published
materialabouteverynamedindividualin oneof the requiredpublicationtypes. The AAO cannot
concludethat a souvenir,which is not the result of independentmedia reporting and which is
distributedor soldatasportscompetition,meetstheplainlanguageof this regulatorycriterion.
Thepetitionersubmitsprintoutsfrom a website asmajormediacoverage.The petitioner'sname
appearson the SadecAsia Pacificwebsite. Thepetitioner'snamedoesnot appearin a traditional
article,asthe websitemerelylists his namenextto his competitorat a tournament.This evidence
clearly falls shortof meetingthe plain languagerequirementsthat the publishedmaterialbe about
the petitionerand this evidencewill not contributeto the petitionersatisfyingthe plain language
requirementsof thiscriterion.
The petitioner also submits an unsigned letter, purportedly from
ReferenceLibrarianfrom the Library of Congress,AsianDivision. As theletteris unsigned,it has
Pagei l
no evidentiaryvalue. The author,purportedly providesthe Library of Congress
microfilmsandsubscribesto the KathmanduPost. Theletterrefersto "Kantipura Publications"or
the"Kantipara" newspaper,whicharebothmisnomers.Theactualpublicationandnewspapername
is Kantipur. The letteralsoindicatesthe Library of Congressmicrofilmsthe Kantipur newspaper.
While this information may indicatethe Library of Congressholds someinterestin the named
publications,the letterfails to provideinformationrelatedto the circulationor distributiondataof
any of the publications. The fact that the Library of Congress,Asian Division microfilms and
subscribesto thesepublicationsis insufficientto establishany of the namedpublicationsqualify
underthis criterionasin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia. As a result,
thepetitionerhasfailedto establishanyof thenamedpublicationsqualifyasmajormedia.
Thepetitionerprovidesapartiallylegiblephotocopyof adocumentthatappearsto befrom thePress
CouncilNepal. This documentappearsto containcirculationdata;however,the documentis not
legibleenoughto makea conclusionrelatedto its contents.Thisdocumentwill not beconsideredas
evidence.
On appeal,thepetitionerprovidesnewevidencerelatedto this criterionin theform of a letterfrom
StationManagerof theStarFM radio station. This letterindicatesthat this radio
stationbroadcasteda 15minuteinterviewwith thepetitioner,"on hisdaily life andaboutWushuand
martialart [sic] onJuly2008." Thepetitionerfailedto providea certifiedtranscriptof theinterview
to establishthis eventmeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof theregulation.
Thepetitionerhasfailedto establishthenamedpublicationsbothqualifyasmajormediaandthatthe
publishedmaterialis abouthim. Thus,thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Evidenceof the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the work of
othersin thesameor an alliedfield of specificationfor whichclassificationis sought.
This criterionrequiresnot only thatthepetitionerwasselectedto serveasajudge,but alsothatthe
petitioneris ableto produceevidencethatheactuallyparticipatedasajudge. Thephrase"ajudge"
impliesa formal designationin ajudging capacity,eitheron a panelor individually asspecifiedat
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally,thesedutiesmusthavebeendirectlyjudging the work of
othersin the samefield in which thepetitionerseeksan immigrantclassificationwithin thepresent
petition.
ThepetitionersubmitsevidencethatheparticipatedasarefereeandjudgeattheSouthAsianWushu
Championship,Kathmandu2000;severallettersof appreciationfrom the NationalSportsCouncil
for the petitioner'scontributionsasa WushuJudgein five competitionsspanningfrom September
throughNovember1996;certificatesfor theInterSchoolWushuChampionshipsin 1996and 1998;
andtwo certificatesfrom theWorld UnitedMartial Arts FederationNepalfrom 2001and2003. The
petitioneralso providesevidencethat he waslisted asa judge at the 2008InternationalKuo Shu
ChampionshipTournament. The directordeterminedthat the petitionerfailed to meet the
Page12
requirementsof this criterion. TheAAO will withdrawthe director'sdeterminationrelatedto this
regulatorycriterion.
The letterof appreciationfrom the NationalSportsCouncilfor thepetitioner'sparticipationin the
RegionalWushuCompetitionheld in Makawanpurlacksany referenceto a dateduringwhich the
competitiontook place. As this evidencefails to establisha dateuponwhichthe qualifyingactivity
occurred,it is insufficient to establishthe petitioner'seligibility for this criterion. The petitioner
submitstwo certificatesfrom the World United Martial Arts FederationNepal for competitions
takingplaceon May 5 - 7, 2001,andJune7 - 9, 2003. Thecertificatesappearto be intendedfor
participantsof the competition,but the issuing authority placed the petitioner's name on the
certificateandwrotethetitle "Judge"in theplacewhich shouldrepresenttheparticipant'sfinishing
position,e.g.,first place,secondplace,etc. Thecertificateissuedby theThird Inter SchoolWushu
Championshipalsois intendedfor the competition'sparticipants,but the issuingauthorityutilized
thisdocumentto attemptto memorializethepetitioner'sactivitiesasajudge.
The evidencerelatedto this 2008InternationalKuo ShuChampionshipTournamentconsistsof a
certificateof appreciationfrom the United StatesKuo ShuFederation(USKSF),an advertisement
pagefor thetournament,anundatedwelcomeletterfrom theUSKSFPresident
to all the "competitors,referees,staff and spectators,"and page73 from a tournamentbook or
pamphlet.Thecertificateof appreciationrelatedto the2008tournamentthanksthepetitionerfor his
"supportandparticipation"in thetournament.Page73 of thetournamentbookliststhepetitioneras
oneof thejudges.
Theevidencefrom the SouthAsianWushuChampionship,Kathmandu2000,the certificatefor the
Leo 4thInter SchoolWushuChampionship,the lettersof appreciationfrom the National Sports
Councilfor the petitioner'scontributionsasa WushuJudgein five competitionsfrom September
throughNovember1996and the pamphletfor the 2008 tournamenteachconstitutesqualifying
evidencethatmeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsof major signißcancein thefield.
Thepetitionerclaimedeligibility for thiscriterionwithin his initial petitionfiling andin hismotionto
reopen.Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor thiscriterionandfoundthatthepetitioner
failedto establishhis eligibility. On appeal,thepetitionerdoesnot contestthedirector'sfindingsfor
this criterion or offer additional arguments.The AAO, therefore,considersthis issue to be
abandoned.Sepulvedav. U.S.Att'yGen.,40] F.3d1226,1228n.2 (11thCir.2005);Hristovv.Roark,
No.09-C¼27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011)(thecourtfoundthe
plaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemon appealto theAAO). Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Page13
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or
establishmentsthat havea distinguishedreputation.
Thepetitionersubmitslettersthatextolhis achievementsandcharacterizethepetitionerasa sincere
hardworkingemployee.Theselettersconfirmthat thepetitionerhasheld variouspositionswithin
severalorganizations.TheAAO will not inferthenatureof thepetitioner'srolesolelyfrom thetitle.
The lettersfail to describethe dutiesthe petitionerperformedfor the organizationsin his various
roles. Thelettersalsofall shortof specifyinghowthepetitionercontributedto theorganizationsin a
way that is significantto the organization'soutcomeor what role he playedin the organization's
activities. In responseto the director'srequestfor evidence(RFE),the petitionerprovideda web
site printout of his biographyfrom the AmericanWu ShuSociety. This biographyprovidesan
accountof the variouspositionsthe petitionerhasoccupied,but it doesnot establishthat he has
playeda leadingor criticalrolefor organizationsor establishments.
The regulationalso requiresthat theseorganizationshave a distinguishedreputation. Counsel
asserts:"[T]he applicant meetsthe criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) by proffering
evidenceof leadingrole [sic] hehasplayedin organizationsof nationalrepute." Theunsupported
assertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.Matter of Obaigbena,19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2;
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez,17 I&N Dec. 506. The
petitionerhasfailed to provideevidencethatanyof theentitiesin whichheallegedlyperformedin a
leadingor criticalrole,enjoyadistinguishedreputation.
As such, the petitioner has failed to provide qualifying evidenceunder this criterion, and he
consequentlyhasnotestablishedthathemeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Summary
[n light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot submittedtherequisiteevidenceunderat leastthreeof the
evidentiarycategoriesfor which evidencemust be submittedto meet the minimum eligibility
requirementsnecessaryto qualify asan alienof extraordinaryability. Nevertheless,the AAO will
reviewtheevidencein theaggregateaspartof ourfinal meritsdetermination.
B. Final MeritsDetermination
In accordancewith theKazarianopinion,thenextstepis afinal meritsdeterminationthatconsidersall
of the evidencein the contextof whetheror not the petitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a "level of
expertiseindicatingthattheindividualisoneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof
the[ir] field of endeavor,"8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2);and (2) "that the alien hassustainednationalor
intemationalacclaimandthathis or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).SeeKazarian,596F.3dat1119-20.
Thecertificatesof participationandthreeawardswereissuedwithin atwo yearperiod,andmorethan
14yearsbeforethepetitionfiling date.Thepetitionerfailedto establishthesecertificatesarenationally
Page14
or internationallyrecognized.Suchevidenceis uncharacteristicof a careerof sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimor thestatusasoneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof their
field of endeavor.
The petitionerestablishesthat the World UnitedMartial Arts Federation-Nepalrequiresoutstanding
achievementsof its technicalmembers,howevertherecordlacksevidencethattechnicalmembersare
admittedusingrecognizednationalor internationalexpertsin thepetitioner'sfield. Membershipin one
associationthateitherdoesnotrequireoutstandingachievementsof itsmembersor thatdoesnot admit
its membersusing recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin the petitioner'sfield, is not
demonstrativeof thosewhohaveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimin theirfield.
Publishedmaterialthatisnot aboutthepetitioneror hisworkandthatappearsin newsmediawithouta
nationalor internationalreachis not representativeof nationalor internationalacclaimnor doesit
demonstratethepetitionerenjoysthestatusasoneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento thevery
topof theirfield of endeavor.
The recordreflectsthat the petitionerhas refereedmartial arts competitions. The natureof the
beneficiary'sjudging experienceis a relevantconsiderationasto whethertheevidenceis indicative
of thebeneficiary'snationalor internationalacclaim. SeeKazarian,596F.3dat 1122. Oneinstance
of judging at a southAsiantournamentin 2000,five regionalcompetitionsin a threemonthspanin
1996and servingas a judge at a 2008tournamentthat, while advertisedas "international,"is of
undocumentedsignificancearenot indicativeof sustainednationalor intemationalacclaimor of one
whohasattainedthestatusasoneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof theirfield
of endeavor.USCISneednot rely on theself-promotionalmaterialof thetournamentorganizersas
to thesignificanceof thetournament.4
In the initial filing, the petitionerclaimedhis participationin a training seminarheld in Nepal in
2007ashis majorcontributionto hisfield pursuantto 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v).Thepetitionerfails
to bridgehis attendanceat this trainingseminarwith anycontributionthatthetrainingseminarmay
haveprovidedto the field of Wushu. Participationin a trainingseminarwill not serveto establish
thepetitioner'ssustainednationalor internationalacclaimor thathehasattainedthestatusasoneof
thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytop of theirfield of endeavor
In the initial filing, the petitionerclaimedphotographstakenduringhis performancesqualifiedas
evidenceof the displayof his work in the field at artistic exhibitionsor showcasespursuantto 8
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The interpretationthat this criterion is limited to the visual arts is
longstandingandhasbeenupheldby a federaldistrict court.SeeNegro-Plumpev. Okin,2:07-CV-
820-ECR-RJJat 7 (D. Nev. Sept.8, 2008) (upholdingan interpretationthat performancesby a
performingartistdo notfall under8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii)).
4SeeBragav.Paulos,No.CV 06 5105SJO(C.D. CA July6, 2007)aff'd 2009WL 604888(9* Cir. 2009)
(concludingthattheAAO did nothaveto relyon self-servingassertionsonthecoverof a magazineasto the
magazine'sstatusasmajormedia).
Page15
Thepetitionerfailedto provideanyqualifyingevidenceof hisleadingor criticalrolefor organizations
or establishments.Thepetitionerrelieson eitherhisjob title or thenominatedpositiontitle with an
organizationor establishmentasproofheperformedin a leadingor criticalrole,whichis insufficient.
Thepetitioneralsofailedto documentthedistinguishedreputationof theseorganizations.As such,the
evidenceisnotindicativeof sustainednationalor internationalacclaimorthatthepetitionerhasattained
thestatusasoneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof theirfield.
Ultimately,the evidencein the aggregatedoesnot distinguishthe petitioneras one of the small
percentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Thepetitioner,a "Wushuplayer,"
relieson awardspredatingthefiling of thepetitionby severalyearsthatlacknationalor international
recognition,membershipin organizationsthat eitherdo not requireoutstandingachievementsof its
membersor thatdo not userecognizednationalor intemationalexpertsto admitmembers,published
materialthat may mentionhim but is not abouthim, judging dutiesalmostexclusivelyat regional
tournaments,andhis job title working in organizationsthatdo not havea distinguishedreputation.
Theseaccomplishmentsarecommensuratewith anexperiencedathletebut not with statuswithin the
smallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof theirfield.
HL Conclusion
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Reviewof therecord,however,doesnot establishthatthepetitionerhasdistinguishedhimselfin the
martialartsto suchanextentthathemaybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor international
acclaimor to bewithin thesmallpercentageattheverytopof hisfield. Theevidenceindicatesthatthe
petitionershowstalentasa Wushuplayer,but is not persuasivethatthepetitioner'sachievementsset
him significantlyabovealmostall othersinhisfieldof martialartsinstructors.Therefore,thepetitioner
hasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetitionmaynotbe
approved.
Thepetitionwill bedeniedfor the abovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasan independentand
alternativebasisfor denial. Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
Accordingly,theappealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.