dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cle:;',; Jnwarranted 
Invasion of personal privacy 
PUoUCCOpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Se('urity 
U.S. Cili/cn:,.hip <llllllrnmi~Lllil)n Sl'rYlcc'-, 
Adrninistrativc Appl':th (lfTice (!\i\()) 
20 Massachusclb Av,' .. nw" MS .::m() 
WashiW.':lon, DC ~():'i2q-.~(fl)(l 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JAN 10 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USc. § I153(h)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
he advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that ollice. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied hy us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please he aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petJtIOn was denied by the Director, 
Texas 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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics.! The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. 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. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets the regulatory categories of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), and (viii). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will 
uphold the director's decision. 
I. Law 
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 
I According to information on the Form 1~140, lmmigrunt Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last admitted 
to the United States on July 2, 2007 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benetit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USClS) 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 H.R. 723 lOIS! Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, fi0898-99 (Nov. 29,1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Docwnentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) 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 classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles 111 the field, 111 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
Page 4 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCfS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9
th 
Cir. 20IO). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion? With respect to the criteria 
at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while uscrs may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." ld. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the signiticance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that '·the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sutlicient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits detern1ination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, uscrs determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the [ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C § 1153(b)( I )(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits detem1ination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2(01), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9
th 
Cir. 2003): 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2(04) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO hact unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II, Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on July 2, 200S, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a soccer player. The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the 
following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards flir excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an April 21, 200S letter from of the 
Georgian Combined Team, Georgian Professional Football League, stating that "[ fJrom 1998 
[the petitioner] was participated in Georgian National Championship. During these years, [the 
petitioner] was . in several club and was leader of team and he was acknowledged as the 
best footballer." comments that the petitioner "was acknowledged as the best 
footballer," but there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner received a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. 
The petitioner submitted an April 21, 200S letter from Secretary, 
Georgian Professional Football League, stating: "On 2004-05, in football season, [the petitioner] 
was called as the best goalkeeper, , , ." asserts that the petitioner was called the 
best goalkeeper in the 2004 - 2005 season, but again there is no documentary evidence showing 
that the petitioner received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence. 
titi,,,n,>, submitted a June \8, 200S letter from 
stating: "In 2003-06 years during playing in 
_[the petitioner] severally was named in symbolic combined team of Georgian national 
championship. As the result of inquiry by newspaper Olimpi he was named among the three best 
goalkeepers." The record, however, does not include documentary evidence from the presenting 
organizations showing that the petitioner received a prize or an award for the preceding honors. 
The petitioner submitted a June 18, 2008 letter from 
., stating that the newspaper Sarbieli named the petitioner "the best goalkeeper of 
the first range of the championship of the year 2005." letter does not indicate 
that she ever worked for and there is no supporting documentary evidence originating 
from the preceding newspaper showing that the petitioner received a prize or an award for his 
achievement. 
The petitioner submitted a June 19,2008 letter from who identifies himself as 
a "Member of veteran's council." stating: "During playing in 'MTSKHETA' and 'KAKHETI' 
.1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
-Page 6 
of Telavi, in 2003-2006 yy [the petitioner] was severally named in the symbol team of the 
Georgian National Championship, In 2003-2004 yy season in newspaper Olimplts after the 
inquiries he was named the best goalkeeper between the three national championship 
goalkeepers." The record, however, does not include documentary evidence from the presenting 
organizations showing that the petitioner received a prize or an award for the preceding honors, 
The petitioner submitted a June 19, 2008 letter from 
himself as a "Member of veteran's counciL" stating that the ne'WSlpa!Jer 
petitioner "the best goalkeeper of the tirst circle letter does not 
indicate that he ever worked for Sarbieli and there is no supporting documentary evidence 
originating from the preceding newspaper showing that the petitioner received a prize or an 
award for his achievement 
The director found that the petitioner had failed to submit evidence showing that he received 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the preceding recommendation letters show that the petitioner 
"was named the best football player in the Georgian National Championship in 1998, the best 
goalkeeper of the championship in 2005, the best prospected goalkeeper and a symbol of the 
Georgian National Championship team in 2003-2006." Rather than submitting primary evidence 
of his prizes and awards originating from the competition's organizers or the aforementioned 
newspapers, the petitioner instead submitted third-party recommendation letters attesting to their 
existence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings, Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec, 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972». A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 
S c'ER, § 103.2(b)(I). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 c'F,R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only 
where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may 
the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be 
unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner 
must submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the 
reason the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time and place are available, 
S C,ER. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii), The third-party recommendation letters submitted by the petitioner do 
not comply with the preceding regulatory requirements, 
In addition to the petitioner's failure to submit primary evidence of his awards, the petitioner did 
not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of the awards purportedly received 
by him, The plain language of the regulation at 8 C,ER. § 2045(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 instance, there is no documentary 
evidence demonstrating that the awards claimed by the petitioner were recognized beyond the 
presenting organizations and therefore commensurate with nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Page 7 
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 classification is 
sought. SlIch 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. 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 September 30, 2003 article in Sarbieli entitled 
_ but the article is about a soccer game in which the petitioner played rather than the 
petitioner himself. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that 
the published material be "about the alien." See, e.g., Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CY-
820-ECR-RJJ at *1,*7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2(08) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are 
not about the actor). The petitioner also submitted an April 19, 2004 article in Sport entitled 
_ Debut in Tbilisi," but the article is about _ and only mentions the petitioner in 
passing. The petitioner'S initial evidence also included an April 27, 2004 article in Dailv Sport 
Newspaper entitled "[The petitioner] will be watched in Poti," but the author of the article was 
not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. The petitioner also 
submitted a September 25, 2003 article in Sport entitled . of this found [the 
petitioner'!," an October 18, 2003-article in Sarbieli entitled and 
[the petitioner's] Image," and an April 27, 2004 article in Sport entitled 
"Where would [the petitioner] continue his career in Russia or Ukraine?" which all include 
interviews of the petitioner. The petitioner failed to submit circulation evidence showing that the 
preceding newspapers qualify as major media. 
In response to the director's 
entitled 
The preceding articles are about soccer games in 
which the petitioner's team articles only briefly mention him along with the 
other participating players. Further, the five additional articles were deficient in that they did not 
include a date, an author, the name of the publication, and circulation evidence demonstrating 
that they were published in major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien '05 original scientific. scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance ill the field. 
4 Even with nationally~circtilateJ newspapers, consideration must he 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, [or instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 8 
The pelltlOner submitted more than a dozen recommendation letters discussing his soccer 
experience and talent as a goalkeeper, but they do not specify exactly what his original 
contributions in the sport of soccer have been, nor is there an explanation indicating how any 
such contributions were of major significance in his field. The AAO cites representative 
examples here. 
states that the petitioner "was 
""n~p.rl as successful and perspective footballer, he was disciplined, considerable and diligent 
youth." 
of #35 Secondary Public School Tbilisi, states: "[The petitioner 1 ... 
played as a in the school combined team. . .. [The petitioner] was in good relation 
with members of his team, earned trainers respect. He was diligent and assiduous ... was 
perspective footballer. He could play according to European standard." 
states that the petitioner 
"played in National Championship of Georgia and was always regarded as the best goalkeeper of 
the country championship." 
a reporter for states: "We can easily name [the 
petitioner] among talented Georgian goalkeepers generation. He stood out for his fast reactions 
and hopefulness. I made several reporting about his good plays. He was in symbolic combined 
team,') 
It is not enough to be a talented player and to have others attest to that talent. An alien must have 
demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
"major significance" in the tield. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3'" Cir. 
1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (20d Cir. Sep 15, 2(03). While the petitioner 
has earned the admiration of his references, there is no evidence demonstrating that he has made 
original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does 
not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other players throughout the sport, nor 
does it show the field as a whole has specifically changed as a result of his work. 
The reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not without weight and have been 
considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted 
as expert testimony. See Malter of Caron International, 191&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). 
USClS is ultimately responsible tl)r making the tinal determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USClS may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Malter of v­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (B1A 20(8) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Thus. the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware 
Page 9 
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 that one would expect of a soccer player who has made 
original contributions of "major significance." Without extensive documentation showing that 
the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major significance in his field, the AAO 
cannot conclude that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputatiolJ. 
The reference letters submitted by the petitioner indicate that he performed in a leading or critical 
role for his soccer teams as a goalkeeper and captain, but the submitted evidence is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that any of his teams had a distinguished reputation in the sport during his tenure as 
player. For instance, the petitioner failed to submit official competitive results (such as 
comprehensive team rankings) distinguishing his team from other successful soccer teams. 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of 
the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dis!. 1990). Further, as previously discussed, going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Summary 
The AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Detennination 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in the AAO's discussion of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), and (viii). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), this decision has already addressed why the submitted documentation fails to 
demonstrate tbat the petitioner is the recipient of nationally or internationally recognized awards 
for excellence in the field. Further, there is no evidence indicating tbat the petitioner has 
received any awards in soccer subsequent to 2006. The statute and regulations, however, require 
-Page 10 
the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been sustailled. See 
section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
documentation submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) is not 
commensurate with sllstained national or international acclaim as of the petition's July 2, 2008 
filing date. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), all of the petitioner's submissions were deficient in at least one of the 
regulatory requirements such as not including a date or an author, not being about the petitioner, 
or not being accompanied by evidence that they were published in major media, Moreover, there 
is no evidence indicating that the petitioner has been the subject of published material subsequent 
to 2004. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his 
national or international acclaim has been sllStained. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is not commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim as of the petition's filing date. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work had major 
significance in the field, let alone an impact consistent with being nationally or internationally 
acclaimed as extraordinary. Aside from the petitioner'S failure to submit evidence demonstrating 
that he has made original artistic contributions of major significance in the field, the AAO notes 
that the petitioner's claim is based on recommendation letters. While such letters can provide 
important details about the petitioner's experience and activities, they cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. The statutory requirement that an alien 
have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond 
the alien's personal and professional contacts. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Aet provide that the "intent of Congress that a very 
high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the 
petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 
Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, l'l'll). The documentation submitted by the petitioner for the 
category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not indicative of or consistent with sustained 
national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of his field. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), as previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that he has 
performed in a leading or critical role for teams that have a distinguished reputation in the sport 
of soccer. Moreover, the AAO notes that there is no documentary evidence establishing that the 
petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for any distinguished soccer teams 
subsequent to 2006. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate 
that his national or international acclaim as a player has been sllstained. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
-Page 11 
documentation submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) is not 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as of the petition's tiling date. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. For instance, the petitioner 
submitted information about soccer playcr _ stating that he won a Major League 
Soccer (MLS) Cup with D.C. United, that he was selected to the MLS All-Star team twice, and 
that he represented the United States in World Cup competition. The petitioner also submitted 
information about _ stating that he is "the all-time leading scorer of the Brazil national 
football team and is the only footballer to be a part of three World Cup-winning teams." 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is above the 
level he has attained. The petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing 
were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a soccer player, or being 
among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The submitted evidence is 
not indicative of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
III. Continuing work in the area of expertise in the United States 
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)( 1 )(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U .S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Such evidence may include letter(s) from 
prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the petitioner detailing plans on how he intends to continue his work in the United States. 
The petitioner has not submitted letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged 
commitments such as contracts, or a personal statement detailing plans on how he intends to 
continue working in the United States. Accordingly, the director found that the petitioner failed 
to submit "clear evidence" that he would continue to work in his area of expertise in the United 
States as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). On appeal, counsel does not 
contest the director's finding on this issue or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, 
considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Cell., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30,2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
IV. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has riscn to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
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 and to be 
-Page 12 
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. Further, the petitioner has not submitted clear evidence demonstrating that he 
will continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, InL v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see a/so So/tane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.