dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
idenCIQi~i~ ',:,?2 de\z-:ed to 
 Office 0fAdmlnlstratrve Appeals MS 2090 
preve;lt dicx\y uilw~nanted 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of pers13"21 privacy 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Abudrd~ 
p John F. Grissom 
t/ Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted 
clear evidence that he would continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) and that he submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that he is coming to the United 
States to continue work in his area of expertise. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on December 28, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as an athlete, a trainer, and a coach. The petitioner's areas of expertise include 
karate, boxing, kickboxing, and ultimate fighting. Regarding his plans to continue to work in the 
United States, the petitioner submitted a December 11, 2006 letter from a boxing 
promoter in Philadelphia, stating that he is "considering a possibility of signing a boxing contract 
with [the petitioner]." The petitioner's continuation of his work in the United States will be further 
addressed below in our discussion of the evidence pertaining to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(5). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. 
 Certificate of Participation stating: "[The petitioner] has attended as Amateur Muay 
Thai Contestant in the 3rd Amateur Muay Thai World Championships, held on 9th - 
16" February 1997;" 
2. 
 Participants I.D. from the World Profi Kick Boxing Association identifying him as a 
fighter in the "World Championship 200 1 ;" 
3. 
 An April 10, 2006 Letter of Invitation from the President of the United States 
Kickboxing Association (USKBA) Action Sports to the Georgian Thaiboxing and 
Kickboxing Federation inviting the petitioner and five others to participate in the 2006 
USKBA Action Sports World Championships Amateur Tournaments from September 
2-3,2006; 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
4. 
 A May 13, 2006 letter from the Director of Technical Operations for the World 
Association of Kickboxing Organizations (WAKO) U.S. Open Kickboxing 
Championships inviting the petitioner to compete in the championships from 
September 15-1 7,2006; and 
5. 
 A December 11, 2006 reference letter from the President of the Georgian Thaiboxing 
& Kickboxing Federation stating: "In 1992 in Turkey, Istanbul was held 
C[ha]mpionship in Greece-Rome wrestling for the first time and [the petitioner] 
occupied the first place and got the gold medal." 
With regard to items 1 through 5, there is no evidence from the competitions' organizers showing 
that the petitioner received a prize or award at these championships. For example, rather than 
submitting primary evidence of hls first place award from the organizing body of the 1992 Greco- 
Roman Wrestling Championship in Turkey, the petitioner instead submitted a letter mentioning the gold 
medal fiom a third-party organization with no demonstrable ties to Greco-Roman wrestling. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed 
with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or 
other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
$ 032(b)(2)(i) The record does not include evidence demonstrating that the petitioner actually 
received a prize or award at the above events. 
The petitioner submitted two certificates from the World Kickboxing Association stating that he 
"won a Gold Medal competing in the 2002 Amateur World Championships" and placed 2nd in the 
"Low kick" style at the "World Kickboxing Championships" in 2000. 
The petitioner also submitted a "Europe Ranking" from the Federation International de Artes 
Marciales (FIDAM) internet site listing the petitioner as the "Champion Germany" for Muay Thai. 
The FIDAM listing does not specify the event name or the date of the competition in which the 
petitioner earned this ranking. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
submitted a March 7, 2008 letter from the President of the Georgian Thaiboxing & Kickboxing 
Federation stating that the petitioner won the German Championship in Kickboxing in Pinneberg, 
Germany in 2003. The record also includes an article in the sports section of Hamburger Abendblatt 
discussing the petitioner's victory. 
With regard to an awards won by the petitioner in amateur competition, we do not find that such 
awards indicate that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). There is no indication that the petitioner faced competition 
fiom throughout his field, rather than limited to his approximate skill level within the field. USCIS 
has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Cornmr. 1994); 56 
Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that a kickboxer who has had success in amateur 
competition should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. 
To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2) that this visa 
category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their 
field of endeavor." 
Regarding the petitioner's awards at the World Kickboxing Championships (2000), the Amateur 
World Championships (2002), and the German Championship (2003), the record lacks supporting 
evidence demonstrating the significance and magnitude of the competitive events won by the 
petitioner.3 The name of the competitions alone, without evidence such as the number of entrants 
who competed in the petitioner's weight category or their level of experience, is not sufficient to 
establish that awards received at the competition are nationally or internationally recognized. The 
plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his 
burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no evidence showing that 
petitioner's awards had a significant level of recognition beyond the competitive events where they 
were presented. Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has received a competitive 
award since 2003. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim 
to be "sustained." See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $8 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
$9 204.5(h)(3). Thus, without more recent qualifying evidence relating to this criterion or other 
criteria, the petitioner cannot establish that he had sustained national or international acclaim as of the 
filing date, December 28, 2006. 
Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by competitive athletes coached 
primarily by the petitioner can also be considered for this criterion. In that regard, the petitioner 
submitted a July 5, 2006 letter from the President of the Georgian Thaiboxing & Kickboxing 
Federation stating: "[The petitioner] is entitled to all the rights to coach Thaiboxing and Kickboxing 
internationally and has five years of training experience." The petitioner also submitted various 
2 
 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. 111. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(21 and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
National competitions typically issue event programs listing the names of the participating contestants and the order of 
events. At a competition's conclusion, results are usually provided indicating how each participant performed in relation 
to the other competitors. The petitioner, however, has provided no evidence of the official comprehensive results for the 
competitive categories in which he received awards. 
Page 6 
coaching credentials and licenses. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
submitted a March 7, 2008 letter from the Director of the Battle Art Federation of Georgia "Sport 
Club" stating that the petitioner "trained . . . who in 2003 proved to be the strongest 
sportsman and won World Championship." The preceding letter does not provide any further 
information regarding the sporting event in which competed. Rather than submitting 
primary evidence o-s award fiom the World Championship's organizers, the petitioner 
instead submitted a letter fiom a representative of the petitioner's sports club attesting to the award's 
existence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 158, 165 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). A petition must be filed with 
any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibilit 
 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
The record does not include substantive evidence demonstrating that *actually received 
a World Championship award or that the award was nationally or internationally recognized in the 
petitioner's field. 
In this case, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner or athletes coached primarily by 
him have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in his sport. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted a July 5, 2006 letter from the President of the Georgian Thaiboxing & 
Kickboxing Federation stating that the petitioner is a member of the Georgian Federation of Thai 
Boxing and Kickboxing Trainer's Council. The petitioner also submitted his credentials from the 
Battle Art Federation of Georgia "Sport Club," World Profi Kick Boxing Association, and World 
Kickboxing Association. The record, however, does not include evidence (such as membership 
bylaws) showing the official admission requirements for these organizations. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a March 7, 2008 letter 
from the President of the Georgian Thaiboxing & Kickboxing Federation stating that the petitioner 
"was the leading member of the combined team of Thai boxing and Kickboxing Federation of 
Georgia" from 1995 until 2004." The record, however, does not include supporting evidence 
showing that membership on this team required outstanding achievements. Membership on an 
Olympic Team or a major national team such as a World Cup soccer team can serve to meet this 
criterion. Such teams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous selection process. 
We reiterate, however, that it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that he meets every element of a 
given criterion, including that he is a member of a team that requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. We will not presume that every 
national "team" is sufficiently exclusive. Without documentary evidence showing the selection 
requirements for the combined team of the Georgian Thaiboxing & Kickboxing Federation, we 
cannot conclude that the petitioner meets the elements of this regulatory criterion. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the preceding organizations require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field or an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classijcation is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.4 
The petitioner submitted a May 15, 2003 article in the sports section of Hamburger Abendblatt, but 
the article was unaccompanied by a certified English language translation. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
fj 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied 
by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and 
by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English. On appeal, the petitioner submits a certified translation of the captioned photograph of him 
that appeared with the Hamburger Abendblatt article, but the article itself was unaccompanied by 
full English language translation as required by the regulation. Without a full translation, the 
petitioner has not established that this article is about him. Further, the author of this article was not 
identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Finally, there is no evidence 
(such as circulation statistics) showing that this newspaper qualifies as a professional or major trade 
publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner also submitted an article about him in Solidarity, a Georgian newspaper. The English 
language translation that accompanied this article was not certified as required by the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Further, the date of the article was not provided as required by the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. Finally, there is no evidence showing that this newspaper qualifies 
as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedfield of speczfzcation for which classiJication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence 
of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, 
depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary 
standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level 
of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner submitted a July 5, 2006 letter from the President of the Georgian Thaiboxing & 
Kickboxing Federation stating that the petitioner is a member of the "Georgian Federation Thai 
Boxing and Kickboxing Trainer's Council" and that he "is entitled to all the rights to coach 
Thaiboxing and Kickboxing internationally and has five years of training experience." On appeal, 
the petitioner asserts that his "duty was to evaluate the candidate for national team [sic]." The content 
of the July 5, 2006 letter from the President of the Georgian Thaiboxing & Kickboxing Federation 
does not support the petitioner's assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 158, 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 
190). There is no evidence showing that the petitioner evaluated candidates for the aforementioned 
national team. 
Nevertheless, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's 
participation . . . as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification." We 
cannot conclude that performing coaching duties is tantamount to judging the work of others in the 
field. While a coach or trainer does evaluate the work of his or her athletes, this evaluation is 
inherent in the process of athletic training. The petitioner's status as a coach demonstrates his 
knowledge and competency in kickboxing instruction, but he has not established that his position 
meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion or that it is indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. Further, there is no evidence showing the names of 
the athletes evaluated by the petitioner, their level of expertise, the dates of their evaluation, or 
documentation of his assessments. Without evidence showing, for example, the athletes actually 
judged or that the petitioner's activities involved judging top competitors in his sport or were 
otherwise consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of his field, 
we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signlJicance in the field. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of reference letters from individuals such as the 
President of the Georgian Thaiboxing & Kickboxing Federation and the Director of the Battle Art 
Federation of Georgia "Sport Club" discussing the petitioner's accomplishments as a kickboxer and 
a coach. The record, however, lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original athletic 
contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted his field. With regard to the petitioner's 
athletic and coaching achievements, the reference letters do not specify exactly what the petitioner's 
original contributions in kickboxing have been, nor is there an explanation indicating how any such 
contributions were of major significance in his sport. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We 
must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some 
meaning. While the petitioner has helped his athletes with their skills and training, there is nothing 
in the reference letters to suggest that he has developed original training techniques, as opposed to 
methodologies passed down from his own tutelage in the sport. Further, even if the techniques 
taught by the petitioner were found to be original, there is nothing to demonstrate that these 
techniques have had major significance in his field. For example, there is no evidence showing that 
the petitioner's training techniques have been widely adopted throughout his sport or have 
significantly influenced others in his sport nationally or internationally. 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal 
contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major 
significance that one would expect of that one would expect of a kickboxer or a coach who has 
sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his sport, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that 
he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the $eld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a December 7, 2006 reference letter from the "Head of Chair of Finances 
and Bank Affairs of Faculty of ~conomics," Tbilisi State University, stating: 
In 2002 [the petitioner] published the Ar[t]icle "The Contradictory Character of Formation of 
Georgian Bank System." . . . In 2004 [the petitioner] had completed the post-graduate course 
and defended the thesis, for what [sic] he was conferred the degree of the Candidate of the 
Economic Sciences and had got the Diploma of Scientific Candidacy. 
Rather than submitting primary evidence of his article, the petitioner instead submitted a letter fiom his 
university mentioning its publication. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 158, 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). A 
petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(b)(l). 
The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). Nevertheless, the petitioner's economic article pertaining to the Georgian 
Banking System does not constitute a scholarly article in the field for which classification is sought, 
coaching and athletics. The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work 
in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(ii), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Further, there is no evidence showing that 
the petitioner's article was published in a professional or major trade publication or some other form of 
major media. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a March 7, 2008 letter 
from the President of the Georgian Thaiboxing & Kickboxing Federation stating that the petitioner 
"was the leading member of the combined team of Thai boxing and Kickboxing Federation of 
Georgia" from 1995 until 2004." There is no evidence showing that this team had a distinguished 
reputation. Further, without objective evidence showing that the petitioner's competitive achievements 
differentiated him fiom those of his team members (such as comprehensive competitive statistics for all 
team members), we cannot conclude that his role for the team was leading or critical. The record also 
lacks information regarding the specific nature of the petitioner's role as a trainer and a coach for the 
Georgian Thaiboxing & Kickboxing Federation team. For example, there is no evidence showing that 
his role differentiated him from the other members of the team's coaching staff. With regard to the 
petitioner's roles as a coach and a kickboxing competitor, there is no evidence showing that he was 
responsible for his team's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
Page 1 I 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Further, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's national or international acclaim as an athlete or a coach has 
been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the record does not include evidence of nationally or internationally 
acclaimed achievements and recognition subsequent to 2003. 
The director also found that the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he would continue to 
work in his area of expertise in the United States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(5) requires 
"clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of 
expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of 
prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on 
how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." 
The petitioner submitted a December 11, 2006 letter from, a boxing promoter in 
Philadelphia, stating that he is "considering a possibility of signing a boxing contract with [the 
petitioner]." The record, however, does not include evidence showing that such a contract was ever 
executed. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a March 6, 
2008 letter from* stating: "[ihe petitioner] is 'determined in continuing his highl$ 
successful kick-boxing career. 
 As his promoter I quickly notice his nature [sic] talent as a 
- - 
professional kick-boxer." The content of -two letters does not provide clear examples 
indicating the means through which the etitioner will continue work as a professional kick-boxer in 
the United States. For example, does not specify the petitioner's training regimen or 
future competitive events in which the petitioner will be entered. Further, we cannot ignore the 
December 7, 2006 letter from Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University indicating that the 
petitioner earned a degree in Economics in 2004. Finally, we note that name is spelled 
differently in his December 11, 2006 and March 6, 2008  letter^.^ It is incumbent upon the petitioner 
to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of 
the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. at 
591. Accordingly, based on the preceding inconsistencies in the petitioner's evidence, we concur 
with the director's finding that the petitioner has not submitted clear evidence that he will continue 
to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Nor is there clear evidence demonstrating that the petitioner will continue to work in his area of 
In addition, 
 signatures on the two letters are completely different. 
expertise in the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.