dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
identifying data deleted to AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
d 20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
preVent Clemiy unWarrante Washington.DC 20529-2090
invasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
PUBLICCOPY
DATE: NOV 1 8 2011 Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)oftheImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquiry thatyou might haveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion, with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat anymotionmust
befiled within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:The employment-basedimmigrant visa petition was deniedby the Director,
TexasServiceCenter,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.The
appealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct),8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alien of extraordinaryability in athletics.1 The directordeterminedthat the petitionerhadnot
establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability through extensivedocumentationand sustained
nationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"and
present"extensivedocumentation"of thealien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the
Act and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthat
an aliencanestablishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievementof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through
(x). The petitionermust submitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatory
categoriesof evidenceto establishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Onappeal,counselarguesthatthepetitionerhasreceivedmajor,internationallyrecognizedawards
andthathemeetsthecategoriesof evidenceat8C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)- (vi) and(viii). Forthe
reasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAO will upholdthedirector'sdecision.
I. Law
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) the alien has extraordinaryability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedby sustainednational
or internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognized
in thefield throughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continueworkin thearea
of extraordinaryability,and
1The recordreflectsthat the petitionerwas last admittedto the UnitedStateson October28, 2007as a B-2
nonimmigrantvisitor for pleasure.
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101"'Cong.,2d
Sess.59(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonly to thoseindividualsin that smallpercentagewho haverisento the very top of the
fieldof endeavor.Id.and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat an aliendemonstratehis or her sustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimandachievements
must be establishedeither through evidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major,
intemationalrecognizedaward)or throughmeetingat leastthreeof thefollowingtencategoriesof
evidence:
(i) Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationallyor internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor;
(ii) Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for which
classificationis sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers,
asjudged by recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor
fields;
(iii) Publishedmaterialaboutthealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'sworkin thefield for whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudge
of the work of othersin the sameor an allied field of specializationfor which
classificationis sought;
(v) Evidenceof thealien'soriginalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,orbusiness-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(vi) Evidenceof the alien's authorshipof scholarlyarticles in the field, in
professionalormajortradepublicationsorothermajormedia;
(vii) Evidenceof thedisplayof thealien'swork in thefield atartisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
(viii) Evidencethat the alien has performedin a leadingor critical role for
organizationsorestablishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
(ix) Evidencethatthealienhascommandedahighsalaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield;or
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownbyboxoffice
receiptsorrecord,cassette,compactdisk,orvideosales.
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinth Circuit (Ninth Circuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification.Kazarianv.USCIS,596F.3d1115(9* Cir.2010).Although
the courtupheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meetagivenevidentiarycriterion.2With respectto thecriteria
at 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), the courtconcludedthat while USCISmay haveraised
legitimateconcernsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"finalmeritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO'sevaluationrestedonanimproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(whichthe AAO did)," andif the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citingto 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"final meritsdetermination"as
thecorollaryto thisprocedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedtherequisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis one
of thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir] field of endeavor,"
8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),and"that the alien hassustainednationalor international
acclaimand that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of
expertise."8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhoseachievementshavegarnered
"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary
ability"visa.8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id. at 1119-20.
Thus,Kazarian setsforth a two-part approachwherethe evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin thecontextof afinal meritsdetermination.In reviewingServiceCenterdecisions,the
AAO will applythetestsetforth in Kazarian.As theAAO maintainsdenovoreview,theAAO
will conductanewanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisorherconclusionbyusingaone-stepanalysis
ratherthanthetwo-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazariancourt. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v.
UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2dat 1043,affd, 345F.3dat683;seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d
at 145(notingthattheAAO conductsappellatereviewonadenovobasis).
2Specifically,thecourtstatedthattheAAO hadunilaterallyimposednovelsubstantiveor evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforthintheregulationsat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
H. Analysis
This petition, filed on April 17, 2008, seeksto classify the petitioner as an alien with
extraordinaryability "in thefield of ChineseMartialArts."
A. Major, internationallyrecognizedaward
Theimplementingregulationat 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencanestablishsustained
nationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,specificallyamajor,
internationallyrecognizedaward.GivenCongress'intentto restrictthis categoryto "that small
percentageof individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor,"the
regulationpermitting eligibility basedon a one-timeachievementmust be interpretedvery
narrowly,with only a smallhandfulof awardsqualifying asmajor, internationallyrecognized
awards. SeeH.R. Rep. 101-723,59 (Sept.19, 1990),reprintedin 1990U.S.C.C.A.N.6710,
1990WL 200418at *6739. GiventhattheHouseReportspecificallycitedto theNobelPrizeas
an exampleof a one-timeachievement,examplesof one-timeawardswhich enjoy major,
internationalrecognitionmay includethe PulitzerPrize,the AcademyAward, andan Olympic
Medal. The regulation is consistentwith this legislative history, stating that a one-time
achievementmustbe a major, internationallyrecognizedaward. 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3). The
selectionof Nobel Laureates,the exampleprovidedby Congress,is reportedin the top media
internationallyregardlessof thenationalityof theawardees,is afamiliarnameto thepublicatlarge,
andincludesa largecashprize. While an internationallyrecognizedawardcould conceivably
constitutea one-timeachievementwithout meetingall of thoseelements,it is clear from the
exampleprovidedby Congressthattheawardmustbeintemationallyrecognizedin thealien'sfield
asoneof thetopawardsin thatfield.
Thepetitionersubmittedthefollowing:
1. Certificateof Awardstating: "This is to certify,onthis that
[thepetitioner)win [sic] the First Placefor mid-age(B) preyingmentis[sic] on The
Macao Traditional ChineseMartial Arts CelebritiesInvit
2. Certificateof Awardstating:"Thisis to certify, , that
[the petitioner]win [sic] the SecondPlacefor [sic] on The Macao
TraditionalChineseMartialArts CelebritiesInvitationalTournament"·
3. Certificateof Awardstating: "This is to certify,on this , that
[thepetitioner]win [sic] theFirstPlacefor mid-age(B) preyingmentis[sic] swordon
theMacaoTraditionalChineseMartialArtsCelebritiesInvitationalTournament";
4. Certificateof Awardfrom theQingdaoCity PhysicalCultureAdministrationandthe
QingdaoCity MartialArts Associationstating: "This is to certify,on thi
that[thepetitioner]win [sic]theFirstPlaceformid-agepreyingmentis[sic]
ontheQmgdao2"dSessionof SportsTournament";
5. Certificateof Honor from the QingdaoCity PhysicalCulture
Administrationstatingthat the petitionerwas "awardedOutstandingMartial Artist
Page6
becauseof [his] greatcontributionto carryingon anddevelopingChinesetraditional
6. Certificateof Honor from the QingdaoCity PhysicalCulture
Administrationstatingthat the petitionerwas "awardedOutstandingMartial Artist
becauseof [his] greatcontributionto carryingon anddevelopingChinesetraditional
7. ertificateof Honor from the QingdaoCity PhysicalCulture
Administrationthankingthepetitionerfor makinga "greatcontributionto carryingon
anddevelopingChinesetraditionalmartialartsandkeepingfit of thepeople[sic]";
8. "Noticeof Issuing2006QingdaoCity OutstandingMartial Arts Coaches"statingthat
the petitioner was listed among 104 "martial arts coaches"who received an
"Outstandi Coachmedal";
9. Three ertificatesof Participationstatingthatthepetitionerachieved
firstplacem eventsat "2ndInternationalTraditiOnalKungFuTournament& Masters
Exhibition";
10.Three"First PlaceAward" certificatesfrom eventsat the '
heldJuly17- 19in Plano,Texas;
11."MasterDemonstrationExcellenceAward"dated fromthe2009U.S.
OpenMartialArtsChampionship;and
12."Certificateof Award"statingthatthepetitionerachievedfirstplacein the"Adult ADV
Weapons- KungF onMen" categoryatthe U.S.IntemationalKuo
ShuChampionshipi
With regardto the Englishlanguagetranslationssubmittedfor items 1 - 8, the translations
accompanyingtheseawardswerenot certifiedby thetranslatorasrequiredby the regulationat
8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Anydocumentcontainingforeignlanguagesubmittedto USCISshallbe
accompaniedby a full Englishlanguagetranslationthatthetranslatorhascertifiedascomplete
andaccurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthatheor sheis competentto translatefromthe
foreignlanguageinto English. Id. In regardto items9 - 12,thesecertificatesincludesectionsin
the Chineselanguagethat were not fully translatedasrequiredby the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(3). Moreover,regardingitems 1- 8, thereis no evidenceshowingthattheseawards
aremajor,internationallyrecognizedawardsratherthanregionalawardsfrom atournamentheld
in Macaoor localawardsfrom "QingdaoCity." In regardto items10- 12,theAAO notesthatthe
petitioner receivedthese certificatessubsequentto the petition's April 17, 2008 filing date.
Eligibility, however, must be establishedat the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R.
§§103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971).
Accordingly, the AAO will not considerthe "Certificateof Award" from the 2009 U.S.
InternationalKuo ShuChampionship,theMasterDemonstrationExcellenceAwardfromthe2009
U.S.OpenMartialArts Championship,andthethreefirst placeawardcertificatesfrom the2009
Legendsof KungFu WorldMartialArts Championshipin thisproceeding.Nevertheless,thereis
no evidenceshowingthatthesecertificatesequateto major,internationallyrecognizedawards.For
example,the online event results for the 2009 Legendsof Kung Fu World Martial Arts
Championshiplist thetopthreefinishersfor morethan250competitivecategoriesincluding"Kids,
Page7
< 2 yrs exp" (kids with lessthan 2 yearsof experience)and "Adult Men, Advanced."3 The
petitioneris identifiedasplacingfirst in the "ExecutiveMen, Advanced"categoryof both the
"TraditionalNorthernPrayingMantis"eventandthe"OpenFlexibleWeapon"event,butthereis no
evidenceshowingthatthepetitionercompetedagainstanyonein his specificcategory.TheAAO
cannotconcludethat placingfirst in an eventcategorywith no othercompetitorsor a limited
numberof entrantsis evidenceof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.
With regardto items 1 - 4 and 9 - 12, the record doesnot include supportingevidence
demonstratingthe significanceandmagnitudeof the specificcompetitivecategorieswon by the
petitioner. For instance,the petitionerfailed to submitevidenceof the official comprehensive
resultsfromtheprecedingcompetitionsindicatingthetotalnumberof entrantsin hiscompetitive
categoryor agedivision. A victory in aneventcategorywith a limitedpool of entrantsor talent
is not evidenceof internationalrecognition. Moreover,a competitionmay be opento athletes
from variouscountries,but this factoraloneis not adequateto establishthatan awardfrom the
eventqualifiesasa major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Theburdenis on thepetitionerto
demonstratethelevelof recognitionandachievementassociatedwith hisawardcertificates.
Regardingitems1- 12,theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)requiresthe
petitioner'sreceiptof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.Thereis nodocumentaryevidence
(suchasextensivemediacoverage)showingthe level of recognitionaccordedto thepetitioner's
receiptof theprecedingawards.Thedocumentationsubmittedby thepetitionerdoesnotestablish
thathis awardswererecognizedbeyondthecontextof theeventswheretheywerepresentedand
thereforecommensuratewith major, internationallyrecognizedawardsin the martial arts.
Accordingly,the petitioner has failed to demonstrateevidenceof a qualifying one-time
achievement.
B. EvidentiaryCriteria
Thepetitionerhassubmitteddocumentationpertainingto the following categoriesof evidence
under8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)f
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizes or awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
As previouslydiscussed,thepetitionersubmittedthefollowing:
1. Certificateof Awardstating: "This is to certify,on this22nddayOfAugust,2006,that
[thepetitioner]win [sic] the First Placefor mid-age(B) preyingmentis[sic] on The
MacaoTraditionalChineseMartialArtsCelebritiesInvitationalTournament";
3 See http://www.legendsofkungfu.com/downloads/External2009.pdf,accessedon October 28, 2011, copy
incorporatedintotherecordof proceeding.
4Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimtomeetor submitevidencerelatingtothecategoriesof evidencenotdiscussedin this
decision.
Page8
2. Certificateof Awardstating: "This is to certify,onthis that
[the petitioner]win [sic] the SecondPlacefo sic] on The Macao
TraditionalChineseMartialArtsCelebritiesInvitationalTournament";
3. Certificateof Awardstating: "This is to certify,onthis that
[thepetitioner]win [sic] theFirstPlacefor mid-age(B) preyingmentis[sic] swordon
theMacaoTraditionalChineseMartialArtsCelebritiesInvitationalTournament";
4. Certificateof Award from the QingdaoCity PhysicalCultureAdministrationandthe
in daoCity MartialArts Associationstating:"This is to certify,on t '
that[thepetitioner]win [sic]theFirstPlacefor mid-agepreyingmenis sic
ontheQingdao2ndSessionof SportsTournament";
5. ! ertificateof Honor from the QingdaoCity PhysicalCulture
Administrationstatingthat the petitionerwas "awardedOutstandingMartial Artist
becauseof [his] greatcontributionto carryingon anddevelopingChinesetraditional
martialarts";
6. ] ertificateof Honor from the QingdaoCity PhysicalCulture
Administrationstatingthat the petitionerwas "awardedOutstandingMartial Artist
becauseof [his] greatcontributionto carryingon anddevelopingChinesetraditional
martialarts";
7. Certificateof Honor from the QingdaoCity PhysicalCulture
Administrationthankingthepetitionerfor makinga "greatcontributionto carryingon
anddevelopingChinesetraditionalmartialartsandkeepingfit of thepeople[sic]";
8. "Noticeof Issuin QingdaoCity OutstandingMartial Arts Coaches"statingthat
the petitioner was listed among 104 "martial arts coaches"who received an
"OutstandingCoachmedal";
9. Thre| Certificatesof Participationstatingthatthepetitionerachieved
firstplacein eventsatthe"2ndInternationalTraditionalKungFuTournament& Masters
Exhibition";
10.Three"FirstPlaceAward"certificatesfrom eventsatthe"|
eldJuly17- 19inPlano,Texas;
11."MasterDemonstrationExcellenceAward" dated6 fromthe2009U.S.
OpenMartial Arts Championship;and
12."Certificateof Award" stati atth titionerachievedfirstplacein the"
" categoryatthe2009U.S.IntemationalKuo
ShuChampionshipin July2009.
With regardto the Englishlanguagetranslationssubmittedfor items 1 - 8, the translations
accompanyingtheseawardswerenot certifiedby the translatorasrequiredby the regulationat
8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).In regardto items9 - 12,thesecertificatesincludesectionsin the
Chineselanguagethat were not fully translatedas requiredby the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(3).Moreover,regardingitems1- 8,thereis no evidenceshowingthattheseawards
arenationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardsfor excellencein thefield ratherthanregional
awardsfrom a tournamentheld in Macaoor local awardsfrom "QingdaoCity." In regardto
items 10 - 12,the AAO notesthat the petitionerreceivedthesecertificatessubsequentto the
petition'sApril 17,2008filing date.Aspreviouslydiscussed,eligibility mustbeestablishedatthe
Page9
timeof filing thepetition. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatigbak,14I&N Dec.at49.
Accordingly, the AAO will not considerthe "Certificateof Award" from the 2009
omthe2009
U.S.OpenMartialArtsChampionship,andthethreefirst placeawardcertificatesfromthe2009
in thisproceeding.Nevertheless,thereis
no evidenceshowingthat thesecertificatesequateto nationally or internationallyrecognized
awardsfor excellencein thefield.
With regardto items 1 - 4 and 9 - 11, the record doesnot include supportingevidence
demonstratingthesignificanceandmagnitudeof thespecificcompetitivecategorieswon by the
petitioner. For instance,the petitionerfailed to submitevidenceof the official comprehensive
resultsfromtheprecedingcompetitionsindicatingthetotalnumberof entrantsin hiscompetitive
categoryor agedivision. Victoriesin obscuretournamentsor in eventcategoriesanddivisions
with only a small pool of entrantsare not persuasiveevidenceof national or international
recognition. Moreover,a competitionmay be opento athletesfrom throughouta particular
countryor countries,but this factoraloneis not adequateto establishthat an awardor prize is
"nationallyor internationallyrecognized." Theburdenis on the petitionerto demonstratethe
levelof recognitionandachievementassociatedwith hisawards.
Regardingitems 1 - 11,the petitionerdid not submitevidenceof the nationalor intemational
recognitionof hisparticularawards,suchasnationalor widespreadlocalcoverageof hisawardsin
professionalor generalmedia. Theplain languageof the regulationat 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)
specificallyrequiresthatthepetitioner'sawardsbenationallyor internationallyrecognizedin the
field of endeavorandit is hisburdento establisheveryelementof thiscriterion. In thiscase,there
is no documentaryevidencedemonstratingthatthepetitioner'sawardswererecognizedbeyond
the presentingorganizationsand thereforecommensuratewith nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievementsof their
members,as judged by recognizednational or international experts in their
disciplinesorfields.
The petitionerinitially submittedevidenceof his membershipin the United Statesof America
Wushu Kungfu Federation(USAWKF), but there is no documentaryevidence (such as
membershipbylaws or rules of admission)showingthat the USAWKF requiresoutstanding
achievementsof its members,asjudgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin the
petitioner'sfield. In responseto the director'snoticeof intentto deny(NOID), the petitioner
submitteda June25,2008Certificateof Membershipfor theAmericaNationalMartialArts Kung
Fu Center (ANMAKFC) and a November21, 2008 Certificateof Appointmentfrom the
ANMAKFC reflectingthat the petitionerwas "appointedto the position of Advisor." The
petitioner'sadmissionto membershipandappointmentasadvisorin theANMAKFCpost-datethe
Page10
petition'sApril 17,2008filing date.Aspreviouslydiscussed,eligibility mustbeestablishedatthe
timeof filing thepetition. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatigbak,14I&N Dec.at49.
Accordingly,theAAO will not considerthepetitioner'sJune25,2008ANMAKFC membership
and November21, 2008 advisor appointmentin this proceeding. Nevertheless,thereis no
evidenceshowingtheANMAKFC requiresoutstandingachievementsof its members,asjudged
by recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin thepetitioner'sfield.
On appeal,thepetitionersubmitshis membershipcertificatesfor theQingdaoWushuAssociation
(QWA)andtheChinaQingdaoShiBei DistrictWushuAssociation(CQSBDWA),buthefailedto
submitdocumentaryevidenceof theorganizations'membershiprequirements.Thepetitioneralso
submittedhismembershipcertificatefor theChineseWushuAssociationdatedNovember18,2006
and a documententitled"ChineseWushuAssociation,"but the Englishlanguagetranslations
accompanyingthesedocumentswerenotcertifiedby thetranslatorasrequiredby theregulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).The"ChineseWushuAssociation"documentstates:"Theapplicantsfor
joining theAssociationmustmeetthefollowing requirements:(A) agreewith theAssociation's
constitution;(B) wish to join the association;(C) havea certaininfluencein the field of martial
arts." The AAO cannot concludethat the precedingrequirementsequateto outstanding
achievements.Thepetitioneralsosubmitsa certificatedated2008-2010statingthathe "hasthe
BasicMembershipof theLily LauEagleClawKungFuFederationInternational"(LLECKFFI)and
marketingmaterialfor theorganization,butthereis no informationregardingits requirementsfor
BasicMembership.Thereis no documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat the ChineseWushu
Association,theLLECKFFI,theQWA,andtheCQSBDWArequireoutstandingachievementsof
theirmembers,asjudgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin thepetitioner'sfield.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Publishedmaterialaboutthealien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'sworkin thefieldfor whichclassificationis
sought.Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation.
In general,in orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthis criterion,it mustbe primarily aboutthe
petitionerand,asstatedin theregulations,beprintedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia. To qualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistribution. Somenewspapers,suchas the New York Times,nominallyservea
particularlocalitybut would qualify asmajormediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,
unlikesmalllocalcommunitypapers.5
Counselassertsthatthepetitioner'sachievementshavebeencoveredin WorldJournal,SingTao
Daily, QingdaoMartial Arts Circle,ChinaTownMonthly,andBiographiesof FamousMastersin
5 Evenwith nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbe given to the placementof the article. For
example,anarticlethatappearsin the WashingtonPost,but in a sectionthatis distributedonlyin FairfaxCounty,
Virginia, for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page11
ConcurrentChineseMartial Art Circles,but thereis no documentaryevidenceof this published
material. Without documentaryevidenceto supportthe claim, the assertionsof counselwill not
satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constitute
evidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534n.2(BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano,19
I&N Dec.1,3 n.2(BIA 1983);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
A petition must be filed with any initial evidencerequired by the regulation. 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistenceor other unavailability of primary evidence createsa
presumptionof ineligibility. 8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(i).Boththedirector'sNOIDandtheMarch
2, 2010 decisionspecificallyinformedthe petitionerthat he failed to submitdocumentary
evidenceof publishedmediacoverageabouthim. Thepetitioner,however,failedto respondby
submittingcopiesof thepublishedmaterialin WorldJournal,SingTaoDaily, QingdaoMartial
Arts Circle, China TownMonthly,andBiographiesof FamousMastersin ConcurrentChinese
Martial Art Circles. The petitioneralso failed to submitdocumentaryevidenceshowingthe
distributionof theprecedingpublicationsrelativeto otherChinesemediato demonstratecoverage
in professionalormajortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
On appeal,counselpoints to an entry in Wikipedia,an online encyclopedia,that purportedly
mentionsthepetitioner"asoneof thefoundersof mantisboxing,"butthepetitionerdidnotsubmit
documentaryevidenceof thearticle. While counselprovidedthe internetlink for the Wikipedia
entry,he did not submita printout of the materialfrom the website. Goingon recordwithout
supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin
theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici,22 I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm'r 1998)(citing Matter of
TreasureCraft of California, 14I&N Dec.190(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)).As previouslydiscussed,
it is thepetitioner'sburdento providetherequisiteinitial evidence.See8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).
The nonexistenceor other unavailability of primary evidencecreatesa presumptionof
ineligibility. 8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(i).Furthermore,in visapetitionproceedings,theburdenis
onthepetitionerto establisheligibility for thebenefitsought.SeeMatter ofBrantigan, 11I&N
Dec.493(BIA 1966);section291of theAct; 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Insteadof simplyidentifyingthe
internetlink for thearticle,thepetitionershouldhavesubmitteda printoutof thematerialfrom
Wikipedia'swebsite. While the AAO finds it within its discretionto verify any evidencein
support of the petition, it is not the AAO's burden to search for evidence on behalf of the
petitioner. Nevertheless, with regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances
about the reliability of the content from this open, user-editedinternet site.6 SeeLamilem
6Onlinecontentfrom Wikipediais subjectto thefollowinggeneraldisclaimer:
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEEOF VALIDITY. Wikipediais an online open-content
collaborativeencyclopedia,thatis,avoluntaryassociationof individualsandgroupsworkingto developa
commonresourceof humanknowledge. The structureof the projectallowsanyonewith an Internet
connectionto alteritscontent.Pleasebeadvisedthatnothingfoundherehasnecessarilybeenreviewedby
peoplewith the expertiserequiredto provideyou with complete,accurateor reliableinformation.. . .
Wikipediacannotguaranteethe validity of the informationfoundhere. The contentof any givenarticle
mayrecentlyhavebeenchanged,vandalizedor alteredby someonewhoseopiniondoesnot correspond
withthestateof knowledgein therelevantfields.
Page12
Badasav.MichaelMukasey,540F.3d909(8thCir.2008).Accordingly,theAAO will notassign
weightto informationfor which Wikipediais thesource.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudgeof
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specificationfor which
classificationissought.
Thepetitionersubmitteda"FirstGradeRefereeCertificate"issuedbytheQingdaoSportsBureauin
December2006anda "Certificateof Martial Arts Judge"(Third-Class)issuedby the Physical
CultureAdministrationof QingdaoCity in January2004,but the Englishlanguagetranslations
accompanyingthesedocumentswerenotcertifiedby thetranslatorasrequiredby theregulationat
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, the plain languageof this regulatory criterion requires
"[e]videnceof the alien'sparticipation. . . asa judge of the work of others." Neither of the
precedingcertificatesconstitutesevidenceof the petitioner'sactual"participation"asa judge.
There is no documentaryevidenceshowingthe namesof the competitionsjudged by the
petitioner,the datesthat those eventstook place, the specific competitivecategorieshe
evaluated,or the namesof the participatingathletes. Rather,the precedingdocumentsonly
reflect the petitioner'squalificationto serveas a judge and a referee. Moreover,thereis no
evidencedemonstratingthat a "referee"actuallyjudgescompetitors,suchasassigningpointsor
determiningwinners,ratherthanmerelyenforcingthe rulesandmaintaininga fair contest. The
record lacks official competition rules showing that serving as a "referee" equatesto
participatingasa"judge"of theworkof others.
The etitionersubmitteda November2007 letter fra
statingthatheworked"asjudgefor QingdaoCitymartialartstournamentsandQigong
com etitions" and a December16, 2007 letter from the
statingthat he worked "as judge for our martial arts tournamentsand Qigong
competitions."Theprecedinglettersdonot includeanaddress,atelephonenumber,or anyother
information through which their author can be contacted. The petitioner also submitted a
September2007letterfrom
statingthat he worked "as judge for our Tai Chi Chuancontests." The English language
translationsaccompanyingthe precedingletterswerenot certifiedby the translatorasrequired
by theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Further,thereis no documentaryevidenceindicating
thedatesof thecompetitions,thespecificcompetitivecategoriesjudgedby thepetitioner,or the
namesof the participatingathletes. Merely submittingdocumentaryevidenceidentifying the
petitionerasajudgewithout evidencedemonstratingwho hejudgedis insufficientto establish
eligibility for this regulatorycriterion. As previouslydiscussed,going on recordwithout
supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Generaldisclaimer,accessedon October31, 2011,copyincorporated
intotherecordof proceedings.
Page13
theseproceedings.Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Ratherthan submittingdocumentary
evidenceof his participationasajudgein specificcompetitions,thepetitionerinsteadsubmitted
brief, vaguelettersattestingto his purportedinvolvement. A petition mustbe filed with any
initial evidencerequiredby the regulation. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).Thenonexistenceor other
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). Accordingto the sameregulation,only wherethe petitionerdemonstratesthat
primary evidencedoesnot exist or cannotbe obtainedmay the petitionerrely on secondary
evidenceandonly wheresecondaryevidenceis demonstratedto beunavailablemaythepetitioner
rely on affidavits. Wherea recorddoesnot exist,thepetitionermustsubmitanoriginalwritten
statementonletterheadfromtherelevantauthorityindicatingthereasontherecorddoesnotexist
andwhethersimilarrecordsfor thetime andplaceareavailable.8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The
letterssubmittedby thepetitionerdonotcomplywith theprecedingregulatoryrequirements.
In responseto thedirector'sNOID, thepetitionersubmittedanOctober25,2009certificatestating
thathereceiveda "MasterDemonstrationExcellenceAward"atthe2009U.S.OpenMartialArts
Championship.This awardpost-datesthe petition'sApril 17,2008filing date. As previously
discussed,eligibility must be establishedat the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R.
§§103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.at 49. Accordingly,theAAO will not
consider the petitioner's "Master DemonstrationExcellenceAward" in this proceeding.
Nevertheless,thereis noevidencedemonstratingthatthepetitioner'sreceiptof theprecedingaward
constitutesevidenceof hisparticipation,eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudgeof thework of
othersin hisfield.
On appeal,the petitonersubmitsa June2007letterannouncingthe 2ndInternatiOnalTraditional
Kung Fu WushuTournament& MastersExhibitionon August11,2007. The letterinvitesthe
petitionerandhis studentsto attendandrequestshis services"asa Judge/Official."Althoughthe
pettionersubmittedthreeAugust11,2007Certificatesof Participationstatingthatheachievedfirst
placein eventsat the"2ndInternationalTraditionalKungFu Tournament& MastersExhibition,"
thereis no documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat the petitioneractuallyparticipatedas a
judge of the work of others. As previouslydiscussed,the plain languageof this regulatory
criterion requires "[e]vidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of others."
Receivingan invitation or requestto judge at a particulareventis not tantamountto evidenceof
one'sactual"participation"asajudge.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceofthe alien'soriginal scientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsigmficancein thefield.
Thepetitionersubmittedlettersof supportfrom his personalcontactsdiscussinghis martialarts
achievements,skills,andtalent. Successandtalentin one'ssport,however,arenotnecessarily
indicativeof originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein the field. Therecordlacksevidence
showingthat the petitioner has made original athletic contributionsthat have significantly
influencedorimpactedhisfield.
Page14
f theWorldKuoshuFederation,states:
I have no doubt that [the petitioner's] talent will make him a successat his future
endeavor.His expertisein ChineseMartialArts,especiallyin Seven-StarPreyingMentis
[sic],will exposethis powerfulform of ChineseMartial Arts to anentirelynewgroupof
practitioners,offeringAmericansawayto stayphysicallyhealthyandmentallybalanced.
nmplimentsthe petitioneron his martial arts expertise,but he doesnot provide
specificexamplesof howthepetitioner'soriginalwork hasalreadyimpactedthefield. Thereis
no evidenceshowingthat the petitioner'swork constitutesoriginal contributionsof major
significancein thefield.
for PreyingMentis [sic] Committee,"QingdaoCity
MartialArts Association,states:
Seven-StarPreyingMentis[sic] is regardedasa highlycomplexform,identifiedby very
fast movementsandalternatekick motionswhich areintricateandvery challengingto
master. Becominga masterin thesecomplexformsis enoughof a taskto lasta man's
lifetime,but [thepetitioner]wentfurtherandpursuedto u radethetechniquesof Seven-
StarMentis,ratherthanjust follow suit. Heand togethercreateda
newsetof arrangementfor teachingandpracticingSeven-StarPreyingMentis[sic] Kung
Fu,whichemphasizesaharmonioususeof practitioner'selbows,hips,andknees.
tatesthat andthepetitionercreatedinstructionalmaterialfor teaching
and practicing Seven-StarPreying Mantis Kung Fu, but there is no documentaryevidence
showingthat this work has notably influencedthe field or otherwiseequatesto original
contributionsof majorsignificancein themartialarts.
'Northof AmericaMartialArts School,"states:
I have encounteredfew artists who can surpass[the petitioner] in terms of all-around
skill. His techniqueis flawless, with exquisite detail work andplentiful surprises. He is
apowerful anddynamicmartial artistwho is supremelyin control of his craft. However,
whatsetshim apartandrankshim evenmorehighly thanthefinestmartialartistsin his
unparalleledbackgroundandhis diversestyle. It wasthis qualitythatmakeshim arising
star,andatrueassetto acommunity.
omplimentsthepetitioneron his skill, technique,andstyle,but hedoesnot provide
specificexamplesof howthepetitioner'sworkhasinfluencedthefield atlarge.
World TraditionalMartial Arts Union and
states:
Page15
[The petitioner] is a greatman with honesty,talents,and, most impressively,strong
enthusiasmin promotingmassmartial arts movements. Definitely, he is an expert
practitioner, instructor and promoter of and, especially,Seven-Star
PreyingMentis[sic] (aspecificsystemof Chinesemartialarts).
mmentson thepetitioner'spersonalqualitiesandareaof expertise,buthe doesnot
providespecificexamplesof howthepetitioner'swork hasinfluencedthefield of martialartsin
generalor otherwiseequatesto originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield. Moreover,
theAAO notesthattheprecedinglettersfrom donot
includeanaddress,atelephonenumber,or anyotherinformationthroughwhichtheirauthorcan
becontacted.
, states:
[Thepetitioner]is a masternot only of themartialartstechniques,butthemoralstandard.
His martialartstheoriesandhishighmartialartsmoralstandardaccountfor a largepartof
whatmakeshim sucha remarkableandoutstandinginstructor. He usedhis theoriesand
experiencein developing,with anewsetof arrangementfor Seven-
StarPreyingMentis[sic]whichis easyfor newpractitionersto learnandpractice.
statesthat the petitioner co-developeda new training arrangementfor Seven-Star
PrayingMantis, but thereis no evidenceshowingthat the petitioner'swork hassignificantly
impactedthefield at largeor otherwiseconstitutesanoriginalcontributionof majorsignificance
in thefield.
states:
[Thepetitioner]is notjust anothertalentedathlete,he is an exceptional,one-of-a-kind
martialartistwhoclearlystandsapartfromtherest.
[The petitioner's] extraordinary talent is further substantiatedby his effort in developing
with me a new set of arrangementin preying mentis [sic] training. This new set
emphasizesacombinationof complexuseandfreeuseof elbows,hips,andknees,which
hasbeenusedby manypractitionersandinstructors.
complimentsthe petitioneron his talent as a martial artist and assertsthat their
prayingmantistrainingarrangementhasbeen"usedby manypractitionersandinstructors,"but
he doesnot identify the practitionersand instructorsusingtheir training materialor provide
specificexamplesof howthepetitioner'sworkhasinfluencedthefield asawhole.
and
Page16
The reason[thepetitioner] hasattainedsucha reputationasa trendsetteris basedon his
efforts in improvinguponthe known methodsof PreyingMentis [sic] Kung Fu. The
improvementson previousmethodsof training aremany,suchasbetterbodily health,
improvedquicknessof the body,andsuperiormethodsof self-defense.Becauseof the
undeniableimprovements[thepetitioner's]PreyingMentis[sic] methodsprovided,many
topmartialartistshaveutilizedhistrainingprogramandseengreatresultsin international
competitions.
does not specifically identify the "top martial artists" who have utilized the
petitioner's training programor provide documentaryevidenceof their competitiveresults.
Moreover,thereis no evidencedocumentingthenumberof martialartsschoolsin Chinaor the
United Stateswho utilize the petitioner'sspecifictraining methodologies. The recordlacks
evidenceshowingthatthepetitioner'swork hasnotablyinfluencedpractitionersthroughoutthe
martialartsfield or otherwiseconstitutesoriginalcontributionsof majorsignificancein his sport.
Further,theAAO notesthatthe letterfrom Mr. Liang doesnot includeanaddress,a telephone
number,or anyotherinformationthroughwhichhecanbecontacted.
and states:
[Thepetitioner's]mostnotablecontributionis in creatingnew trainingmethodsfor the
Seven-StarPreyingMentis[sic]. LongbeforeI methim in 2009attheU.S.OpenMartial
Arts Championship,I knew about [the petitioner's] training techniques,which I can
confirmareusedin Asia,andprimarily China. I personallyusedhis trainingtechniques
for my own training,andalso,to train top studentsat my own schoolin America. His
newtrainingtechniqueis, in my opinion,oneof themajorcontributionsin thefield in the
pastdecade.
oesnot specificallyidentifythe Seven-StarPrayingMantistrainingmethodscreated
by the petitioner,explain how they are original, or provide specific examplesof how the
petitioner'scontributionshaveimpactedthe field suchthat his work risesto the level of original
contributionsof major significancein the field. Vague,solicited lettersfrom local colleagues
that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific examplesof how those
contributionsinfluencedthefield areinsufficient. Kazarianv. USCIS,580F.3d 1030,1036(9th
Cir. 2009)aff'd inpart 596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).In 2010,theKazariancourtreiteratedthat
theAAO's conclusionthat"lettersfromphysicsprofessorsattestingto [thealien's]contributionsin
the field" wereinsufficientwas"consistentwith therelevantregulatorylanguage."596F.3dat
1122.
, states:"[Thepetitioner]is in thefront
linesof martialartistswhoarehelpingto spreadtheknowledgeof martialarts. Heis a revered
instructorwhohascomeup with manyinnovative,original,anduniquetechniqueswhichhave
beensubsequentlyutilized by countlessmartial artists."Masserts that the petitioner's
techniqueshave beenutilized by countlessmartial artists, but the record doesnot include
Page17
documentaryevidenceto supporthis assertion. USCISneednot acceptprimarily conclusory
assertions.1756,Inc. v. TheAttorneyGeneralof the UnitedStates,745F. Supp.9, 15(D.C.
Dist. 1990).
The precedingreferencesdo not explain how the petitioner's martial arts programsand
techniquesareoriginal,nor do theyprovidespecificexamplesof how his contributionsriseto a
levelconsistentwithmajorsignificanceinthefield. It is notenoughto betalentedandto haveothers
attestto that talent. An alienmusthavedemonstrablyimpactedhis field in orderto meetthis
regulatory criterion. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(v),an alien's
contributionsmust be not only original but of "major significance"in the field. The phrase
"major significance"is not superfluousand,thus,it hassomemeaning. Silvermanv. Eastrich
MultipleInvestorFund,L.P.,51F.3d28,31(3rdCir. 1995)quotedinAPWUv.Potter,343F.3d
619, 626 (2ndCir. Sep 15, 2003). While the petitioner has earnedthe admirationof his
references,thereis no evidencedemonstratingthathehasmadeoriginalathleticcontributionsof
major significancein the field. For example,the recorddoesnot indicatethe extentof the
petitioner'sinfluenceon otherinstructorsthroughoutthemartialartsfield, nor doesit showthat
thefield hassignificantlychangedasaresultof hisoriginalwork.
Theopinionsof expertsin the field arenot withoutweightandhavebeenconsideredabove.
USCISmay,in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony.
SeeMatterof CaronInternational,19I&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r1988).USCISis,however,
ultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthe final determinationregardingan alien'seligibility for the
benefit sought. Id. The submissionof letters from expertssupportingthe petition is not
presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCIS may evaluatethe contentof thoseletters as to
whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at795-796;seealsoMatterof V-K-,24I&N
Dec.500,n.2(BIA 2008)(notingthatexpertopiniontestimonydoesnotpurportto be evidence
as to "fact"). Thus,the contentof the experts'statementsandhow they becameawareof the
petitioner'sreputationareimportantconsiderations.Evenwhenwritten by independentexperts,
letters solicited by an alien in supportof an immigration petition are of less weight than
preexisting,independentevidencethat one would expectof a martial arts practitionerand
instructorwho has made original contributionsof major significance. Without supporting
evidence showing that the petitioner's work equatesto original contributions of major
significancein hisfield, theAAO cannotconcludethathemeetsthis criterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, inprofessionalor
majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
The petitionersubmitteddocumentationof what is allegedto be his book entitledSeven-Star
PreyingMentisFunctionandInstructionsfor Practiceandan articlehe authoredentitled"Taji
plum-blossommantis boxing," but the English languagetranslationsaccompanyingthese
documentswere not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(3).Further,theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi)requires
"[e]videnceof the alien's authorshipof scholarlyarticlesin the field, in professionalor major
tradepublicationsor othermajormedia"[emphasisadded]. Generally,scholarlyarticlesare
Page18
written by andfor expertsin aparticularfield of study,arepeer-reviewed,andcontainreferences
to sourcesusedin the articles. In this case,the recordlacksevidencedemonstratingthat the
petitioner'sbook and article were peer-reviewed,containany referencesto sources,or were
otherwiseconsidered"scholarly." Moreover,thereis no evidenceshowingthatthepetitioner's
bookequatesto a professionalor majortradepublicationor someotherform of majormedia,or
that his articlewaspublishedin a professionalor majortradepublicationor someotherform of
major media. The AAO notes that the record does not include evidenceindicating the
distributionor circulationof thepetitioner'sbookor article. Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnot
establishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidencethatthealienhasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
Thepetitionersubmittedthefollowing:
1. Grade-1Social SportsDirector Certificate from the Administrationof Sportsof
....... •. , - , .,.. " ,. i •certify that [the petitioner] . . . works in
The periodhe hasbeenthe socialsports
directoris: Grade-3_years Grade-2_years Grade-1_years." (2006);
2. Grade-2SocialSportsDirectorCertificatefrom the PhysicalCultureAdministration
of thePeople'sRepublicof Chinastating: "This is to certifythat [thepetitioner]. . .
worksin Theperiodhehasbeenthesocial
sportsdirectoris: Grade2 yearsGradeyearsGradeyears."(December5,2005);
3. Letterof Appointmentstating: "This is to certify, on this dayof June,2004,thatwe
PreyMentis[sic] Committeeof QingdaoMartialArtsAssociation,doesherebyinvite
[the petitioner]to serveas Chief Coachof PreyingMentis [sic], effectiveJuneof
2004.";
4. November2007letterfrom statingthat
thepetitionerservedasVice President,activelypromotedmartialartsin theborough,
workedasajudgefor QingdaoCity martialartstournamentsandQigongcompetitions,
andcoachedmartialartspractitionersin thecity;
5. September2007 letter from
AdministrationstatingthatthepetitionerservedasVice President,activelypromoted
Tai Chi Chuanin the district, workedas a judge for Tai Chi Chuancontests,and
coachedTai Chi Chuanpractitionersin theborough;and
6. December16,2007letterfrom theQingdaoCity SeniorQigongArts Associationstating
that the petitionerservedas President,actively promotedmartial arts in the city,
workedasajudgefor martialartstournamentsandQigongcompetitions,andcoached
Qigongpractitionersin thecity.
With regardto items1- 6, theEnglishlanguagetranslationsaccompanyingthesedocumentswere
not certifiedby the translatorasrequiredby the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further,
regardingitems 1 - 4 and6, the AAO notesthat the documentsdo not includean address,a
telephonenumber,or any other informationthroughwhich the issuingorganizationscan be
Page19
contacted.Moreover,in re ardto items 1- 6, thereis no documentaryevidenceshowingthat
, the QingdaoMartial Arts Association,the Four
FangBoroughMartial Arts Association,the QingdaoSheBei District SeniorPhysicalCulture
Administration,and the QingdaoCity SeniorQigongArts Associationhave a distinguished
reputation.As previouslydiscussed,goingonrecordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidence
is not sufficientfor purposesof meetingthe burdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of
Soffici,22 I&N Dec.at 165. Finally,regardingitems1- 3,thereis no evidenceshowingthatthe
petitioner'srole asSocialSportsDirectorfor the QingdaoMingyi Dress-makingCompanyand
role asChiefCoachof PrayingMantisfor theQingdaoMartial Arts Associationwereleadingor
critical. Without documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's achievements
differentiatedhim from theotherstaffworkingfor theQingdaoMingyi Dress-makingCompany
andtheQingdaoMartial Arts Association,theAAO cannotconcludethathewasresponsiblefor
their successor standingto a degreeconsistentwith the meaningof "leadingor critical role."
Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Summary
In this case,theAAO concurswith the director'sdeterminationthatthepetitionerhasfailedto
demonstratehis receiptof a major, internationallyrecognizedaward,or that he meetsat least
threeof thetencategoriesof evidencethatmustbesatisfiedto establishtheminimumeligibility
requirementsnecessaryto qualify asanalienof extraordinaryability. 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).A
finalmeritsdeterminationthatconsidersall of theevidencefollows.
C. Final MeritsDetermination
TheAAO will nextconducta final meritsdeterminationthatconsidersall of theevidencein the
contextof whetheror notthepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a "level of expertiseindicatingthat
the individualis oneof that smallpercentagewho haverisento the very top of the[ir] field of
endeavor,"8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that the alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthathis or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct; 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).SeealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.In the
presentmatter,many of the deficienciesin the documentationsubmittedby the petitionerhave
alreadybeenaddressedin the AAO's discussionof the categoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(3)(i)- (vi) and(viii).
With regard to the documentationsubmittedfor the category of evidenceat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i),this decisionhasalreadyaddressedwhy thesubmittedawardsdo notriseto the
level of nationally or internationallyrecognizedawardsfor excellencein the field. The
petitioner's evidenceis also not indicative of or consistentwith sustainednational or
internationalacclaimor a level of expertiseindicatingthat the petitioneris oneof that small
percentagewho haverisento the very top of his field. For instance,thereis no evidence
showingthat the petitionerfaceda significantpool of top competitorsin China,the United
States,or internationally. Awards won by the petitioner in age-restrictedtournaments,in
competitivecategorieswith only a limitedpoolof entrants,or in competitionswhosereputation
Page20
is undocumenteddo not establishthathe "is oneof that smallpercentagewho haverisento the
verytop of thefield of endeavor."See8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).USCIShaslongheldthateven
athletesperformingat themajorleagueleveldonot automaticallymeetthestatutorystandardsfor
immigrantclassificationasan alienof "extraordinaryability." Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec.953,
954(Assoc.Commr.1994);56 Fed.Reg.at 60899. Likewise,it doesnot follow that an athlete
whohasreceivedawardsin age-restrictedcompetition,obscuretournaments,or eventcategories
anddivisionswith only a small pool of entrantsshouldnecessarilyqualify for approvalof an
extraordinaryability employment-basedimmigrantvisapetition. While the AAO acknowledges
thata districtcourt'sdecisionis not bindingprecedent,theAAO notesthatin Matter ofRacine,
1995WL 153319at*4 (N.D.Ill. Feb.16,1995),thecourtstated:
[T]heplain readingof the statutesuggeststhattheappropriatefield of comparisonis not
a comparisonof Racine'sability with thatof all thehockeyplayersat all levelsof play;
but rather, Racine'sability as a professionalhockey player within the NHL. This
interpretationis consistentwith at leastoneothercourtin this district, Grimsonv. INS,
No. 93 C 3354,(N.D.Ill. September9, 1993),andthedefinitionof theterm8C.F.R.
204.5(h)(2),andthediscussionsetforthin thepreambleat 56Fed.Reg.60898-99.
Althoughthe presentcasearosewithin thejurisdiction of anotherfederaljudicial district and
circuit, the court's reasoningindicatesthat USCIS' interpretationof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(2)is reasonable.To find otherwisewould contravenethe regulatoryrequirementat
8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(2)that this visa category be reservedfor "that small percentageof
individualsthathaverisento theverytopof theirfield of endeavor."
Regardingthedocumentationsubmittedfor thecategoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii),
aspreviouslydiscussed,thereis no evidenceshowingthat the petitioner'sassociationsrequire
outstandingachievementsof their members,asjudgedby recognizednationalor international
expertsin his field. Thepetitionerhasnot establishedthathis membershipsareindicativeof or
consistentwith sustainednationalacclaimor a levelof expertiseindicatingthatheis oneof that
smallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof hisfield.
In regard to the documentationsubmitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iii),the petitionerfailed to submitdocumentaryevidenceof publishedmaterial
abouthim in WorldJournal,SingTaoDaily, QingdaoMartial Arts Circle,ChinaTownMonthly,
andBiographiesof FamousMastersin ConcurrentChineseMartial Art Circles. The petitioner
alsofailedto submitdocumentaryevidenceshowingthedistributionof theprecedingpublications
relativeto otherChinesemediato demonstratecoveragein professionalor majortradepublications
or othermajormedia. Thepetitionerhasnot establishedthat his level of mediacoverageis
indicativeof or consistentwith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimor a levelof expertise
indicatingthatheis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof hisfield.
With regardto theevidencesubmittedfor thecategoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv),
thepetitionerfailedto submitdocumentaryevidenceof his actualparticipationasajudgeof the
work of others in his field. Further, there is no evidencedocumentingthe reputation,
Page21
significance,or magnitudeof the tournamentshejudged,or the level of expertiseof thosehe
evaluated. The petitionerfailed to submitevidencedemonstratingthat hejudged top martial
artistsat thenationalor internationallevel ratherthanyouthor novicesat the local or regional
level. Cf, Matterof Price,20 I&N Dec.953,954(Assoc.Comm'r.1994);56 Fed.Reg.at
60899(USCIShaslong held that evenathletesperformingat the major leaguelevel do not
automaticallymeetthe "extraordinaryability" standard).Thedocumentationsubmittedby the
petitionerdoesnot establishthathis levelof judging is commensuratewith sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimattheverytopof thefield.
Regardingthedocumentationsubmittedfor thecategoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v),
there is no documentaryevidence demonstratingthat the petitioner's work had major
significancein the field, let alonean impactconsistentwith beingnationallyor internationally
acclaimedasextraordinary.Asidefromthepetitioner'sfailureto submitevidencedemonstrating
thathehasmadeoriginalathleticcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield, theAAO notes
that the petitioner'sclaim is basedpartly on recommendationletters. While suchletterscan
provideimportantdetailsaboutthe petitioner'sexperienceandactivities,they cannotform the
cornerstoneof a successfulextraordinaryability claim. Thestatutoryrequirementthatanalien
have"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"necessitatesevidenceof recognitionbeyond
the alien's personalcontacts. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). Thecommentaryfor theproposedregulations
implementingsection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct providethatthe "intent of Congressthat a very
highstandardbesetfor aliensof extraordinaryabilityis reflectedin thisregulationbyrequiringthe
petitionerto presentmoreextensivedocumentationthanthatrequired"for lesserclassifications.56
Fed.Reg. 30703,30704(July 5, 1991). Even when written by independentexperts,letters
solicitedby an alien in supportof an immigrationpetition areof lessweightthanpreexisting,
independentevidencethat onewould expectof a martial artist who hassustainednationalor
internationalacclaimattheverytop of thefield. Thedocumentationsubmittedby thepetitioner
for the categoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)is not indicativeof or consistentwith
sustainednational acclaim or a level of expertiseindicating that he is one of that small
percentagewhohaverisento theverytopof hisfield.
In regard to the documentationsubmitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vi),aspreviouslydiscussed,thereis no documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat
thepetitionerhasauthoredscholarlyarticlesin professionalor majortradepublicationsor other
major media. The evidencesubmittedby the petitioner is not indicative of or consistentwith
sustainednationalor internationalacclaimor a levelof expertiseindicatingthatheis oneof that
smallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof hisfield.
With regard to the documentationsubmitted for the categoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(viii),thepetitionerdid not submitevidenceestablishingthatheperformedin a
leadingor criticalrolefor organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation.The
evidencesubmittedby thepetitioneris not indicativeof or consistentwith sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimor alevelof expertiseindicatingthatheis oneof thatsmallpercentagewho
haverisentotheverytopof hisfield.
In thiscase,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathisachievementsatthetimeof filing thepetition
werecommensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimin the martialarts,or being
amongthatsmallpercentageattheverytop of thefield of endeavor.TheAAO cannotignorethe
March 10,2008letterfroM statingthatthepetitioneris "a risingstar"andthathe "is
poisedto becomea name to remember." The petitioner seeksa highly restrictive visa
classification,intendedfor individualsalreadyatthetopof theirrespectivefields,ratherthanfor
individualsprogressingtowardthetop at someunspecifiedfuturetime. Thesubmittedevidence
is not indicativeof a "careerof acclaimedwork in thefield" ascontemplatedby Congress.H.R.
Rep.No. 101-723,59 (Sept.19, 1990). The conclusionthe AAO reachesby consideringthe
evidenceto meeteachcategoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)separatelyis consistent
with a reviewof theevidencein theaggregate.Ultimately,theevidencein theaggregatedoesnot
distinguishthepetitionerasoneof thesmallpercentagewhohasrisento theverytopof thefield of
endeavor.8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
D. Continuingworkin theareaof expertisein the UnitedStates
Beyondthedecisionof thedirector,thestatuteandregulationsrequirethatthepetitionerseeksto
continuework in his areaof expertisein the United States.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(ii)of the
Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii);8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(5).Suchevidencemayincludeletter(s)
from prospectiveemployer(s),evidenceof prearrangedcommitmentssuchas contracts,or a
statementfrom the petitionerdetailingplanson how he intendsto continuehis work in the
United States. On the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, Part 6, "Basic
informationabouttheproposedemployment,"wasleft blank. In thiscase,thepetitionerhasnot
submittedletter(s)from prospectiveemployer(s),evidenceof prearrangedcommitmentssuchas
contracts,or a statementdetailingplanson how he intendsto continueworking in the United
States.Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnot submitted"clear evidence"that he will continueto
work in his areaof expertisein the United Statesas requiredby the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(5).
III. Conclusion
The documentationsubmitted in support of a claim of extraordinaryability must clearly
demonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof the
smallpercentagewhohasrisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.
Reviewof therecorddoesnot establishthat thepetitionerhasdistinguishedhimselfto suchan
extentthathemaybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandto be
within the smallpercentageat thevery top of his field. Theevidenceis notpersuasivethatthe
petitioner'sachievementssethim significantlyabovealmostall othersin hisfield atanationalor
internationallevel. Further,thepetitionerhasnot submittedclearevidencedemonstratingthathe
will continueto workin hisareaof expertisein theUnitedStates.Therefore,thepetitionerhasnot
establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act andthe petition may not be
approved.
Page23
An applicationor petition that fails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof the law maybe
deniedby theAAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of the groundsfor denialin
the initial decision. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. United States,229 F. Supp.2d at 1043,
affd, 345F.3dat683;seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3dat 145(notingthattheAAO conducts
appellatereviewonadenovobasis).
In visa petition proceedings,the burdenof proving eligibility for the benefit soughtremains
entirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thatburdenhasnot
beenmet.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.