dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

'identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
pUBUCCOpy 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
MAY 0 9 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.s. Department of Homeland Secnrity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S_ Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § \ \ 53(b)(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 been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by 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. § \03.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § \03.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
,2Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § JJ53(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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)(J)(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 asserts that the director erred in evaluating rather than simply counting the evidence 
submitted. As explained below, the director correctly determined that the petitioner has not submitted 
qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, the only qualifying evidence consists of awards, most of which are at the junior level. 
Moreover, even the evidence in the aggregate, almost entirely awards, is not persuasive evidence of 
national or international acclaim. Finally, beyond the decision of the director, the only evidence of 
prospective employment is as a coach. The petitioner, who has documented accomplishments as an 
athlete, has not demonstrated that coaching is within his area of expertise. 
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, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), ajJ'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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 
(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 H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (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. Id.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifYing evidence under at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser 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 in the field, in 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; 
(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 20 I 0, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 FJd 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 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 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS 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." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance 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 sufficient 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 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" 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." 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
8 C.F.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 determination. 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 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
II. Analysis 
The petitioner listed his occupation on the petition as "wrestler" but did not complete Part 6 regarding 
the proposed employment. Initially, the petitioner stated he came to the United States to participate in a 
New York competition but does not specifY his future plans. In response to the director's request for 
evidence that the petitioner was coming to the United States to "continue work as a wrestler," the 
petitioner submitted a letter from 
stating that the petitioner "will be coaching an 80 member high school wrestling team." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) requires the beneficiary to "continue work in the area of 
expertise." As stated above, the petitioner intends to work as a coach in the United States. While a 
wrestler and a wrestling coach certainly share knowledge of wrestling, the two rely on very different 
sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are not the same area of expertise.2 
Nevertheless, there exists a nexus between playing and coaching a given sport. To assume that every 
extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, however, would be too speCUlative. To 
resolve this issue, the following balance is appropriate. In a case where an alien has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of 
coaching at a national level, the AAO will consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an 
overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that the AAO can conclude that 
coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. Specifically, in such a case the AAO will 
consider the level at which the alien acts as coach. A coach who has an established successful 
history of coaching athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible claim; a coach 
of novices does not. 
2 Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002). 
-Page 6 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
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 letters from 
following youth awards: 
I. 1999 - First Place of the Kyrgyz Republic among the youth. 
2. 2001 - International tournament of Kovalev Astana (Kazakhstan), first place. 
3. 2004 - First place of the Kyrgyz Republic (youth) - 1 st place. 
The letters also list two awards in 2000, both at the first place level, and a second place finish in 2002. 
The competitions are (I) the international tournament for the prize of Honored trainer Remezov A.I., 
(2) the international tournament for the prizes of Honored trainer Janaev R and (3) the international 
tournament of Rakhimov Shimkent City in Kazakhstan. While the letters do not designate these 
competitions as youth competitions, the petitioner was 12 years old in 2000 and 14 in 2002. The letters 
also list youth competitions in the United Arab Emirates and Manila in 2006 and 2007 but do not 
suggest that the petitioner won any awards at those competitions. 
The petitioner also submitted the following awards not listed on the above letters: 
1. An undated certificate for First Place at the International Tournament of Free Style 
60 kg weight class, in the Kyrgyz 
2. An undated certificate for First Place at the International Tournament of Free Style 
Wrestling in honor of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, 74 kg weight class. 
3. A 2006 certificate for First Place at the Kyrgyz Republic University Games. 
4. A 2005 certificate for First Place in the Open KepU[HlCllll 
Wrestling 
Tourism, Sport, and Youth. 
3 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
-Page 7 
5. A 2005 certificate for Third Place at the Kyrgyz Republic Cup in the 74 kg weight class. 
6. An undated certificate for Tbird Place at the New Year Junior Tournament of Free Style 
Wrestling among adolescents born between 1985-1988 in the 69 kg weight class. 
7. An undated and vague "Diploma I sl Degree" from the Republican Center of Physical 
Culture and Sport "Emgek Reserve." 
Finally, the petitioner submitted medals allegedly for the above competitions, a national competition in 
2007 and two youth competitions in 2003. The petitioner did not explain why neither letter mentions 
the 2003 or 2007 awards not documented with certificates. The medals themselves do not bear the 
petitioner's name. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i) requires that the petitioner establish 
that the awards or prizes are nationally or internationally recognized. uscrs will not presume such 
recognition simply because the term "international" appears in the title of the competition. 
provide no information about the competitions themselves. _ 
currently a volunteer assistant coach at American University, asserts that 
the petitioner "has won top awards at the competitions that are unequivocally accepted as forums for 
the very best athletes." The petitioner did not submit corroborating evidence of this statement, such as 
national media coverage of the competitions in the trade or general media. Even accepting that letters 
from a national organization confirming the receipt of awards are evidence of the awards' national 
recognition, the petitioner has only submitted qualifying evidence under this single criterion. 
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. 
both assert that the petitioner was a member of the "National 
cOlmbine:d team Kyrgyzstan wrestling." The director noted the junior level of most if not 
all of the petitioner's competitions and concluded that the petitioner must have been a member of a 
national junior team. Counsel asserts that the petitioner submitted "official references confirming that 
the National team requires outstanding achievements of the members, as judged by national 
or international experts in the appropriate discipline or field." The letters from and 
_however, did not provide the requirements for membership on the national combined team 
~ate how many youth are members of this "combined" team. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires membership in qualifying "associations." A team 
is not an association. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
"comparable" evidence where the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3) are not readily applicable to the 
Page 8 
alien's occupation. It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3) are not readily applicable. 
Even assuming that this criterion is not readily applicable to the petitioner's occupation such that the 
petitioner may rely on comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(4), the team must require 
outstanding achievement of its members as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts 
in order to be "comparable." It is the petitioner's burden to provide evidence establishing that the 
petitioner has satisfied every element of this criterion, including the membership requirements. The 
AAO will not presume that every national "combined" team that sends athletes to youth competitions 
has such requirements. 
Even if the AAO accepted that the petitioner had provided evidence that the national team membership 
was qualifYing, and the AAO makes no such determination, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii) 
requires evidence of membership in qualifYing associations in the plural. This requirement is consistent 
with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. 
Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a 
single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it 
expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be 
in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the plural in a regulatory criterion has meaning. In a different context, 
federal courts have upheld users' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural 
is used in a regulation. 4 The petitioner has not documented a second membership. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifYing or comparable evidence that meets the 
plain language requirements for the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field 
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. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in athletics, it can be 
expected that the accomplishment would have a demonstrable impact on the sport or set a standard to 
which renowned participants aspire, such as a world record. 
~ a third season assistant coach at American University and a former coach of the 
~nal Team, asserts that the petitioner "has managed to develo~ 
style wrestling technique that has never been implemented in the USA before." ____ 
4 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
-Page 9 
'«"IT< that the petitioner "has already made and will 
continue to make substantial contributions to free style wrestling competition and training." _ 
_ lists the petitioner's awards and states that because of this background, the petitioner "has 
helped to beneficially influence the American Wrestling community." USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 5 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998) . 
.. solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identifY contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 6 The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, 
in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 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 from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as the AAO has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. [d. at 795; see also 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'!. 
Comm'r. 1972». 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
contributions without identifYing specific contributions. The letters also fail to provide an 
explanation of how the petitioner's technique is original in the entire field of wrestling (not just the 
United States). Finally, the letters do not provide specific examples of how those contributions rise 
to a level consistent with major significance in the field, such as examples of widespread use of the 
petitioner's techniques by independent wrestling coaches. Merely repeating the language of the 
5 1756. Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
6 Kazarian v. USC/S, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th CiT. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d Ill5 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
alien's] contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
Page 10 
statute or regulations does not satisfY the petitioner's burden of proof." The petitioner also failed to 
submit sufficient corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which 
could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that the petitioner's 
participation in international competitions "is comparable to display of the alien's work in the field" 
pursuant to "8 C.F.R. 240.5." The director declined to consider the petitioner's participation III 
competitions under this criterion. Counsel reiterates the same assertion on appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) provides that if the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not 
"readily apply" to the petitioner's occupation, the petitioner may submit "comparable" evidence. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is not readily applicable to athletes. The inapplicability of this 
criterion, however, does not suggest that every athletic competition is "comparable" to an artistic 
exhibition or showcase. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows USCIS to consider evidence that might be indicative of 
or consistent with national acclaim but does not fit under the ten criteria because they are not readily 
applicable to the alien's field. This decision has already considered the petitioner's prizes and awards 
at public competitions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The AAO will not consider this same evidence 
as comparable under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). To hold otherwise would undermine the regulatory 
requirement that the petitioner submit evidence under three separate criteria. 
Ultimately, the purpose of an athletic competition is to display a competitive event rather than the 
individual work of the athletes. Such competitions, inherent to competing as an athlete, are not 
"comparable" to artistic exhibitions of showcases of an artist's work. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifYing evidence to the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) or comparable evidence. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence and again on appeal, counsel refers to the 
letters from and ....--as qualifYing evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). While both letter~tioner was a member of a national combined 
team, neither attest to the nature of the petitioner's role on that team. This decision has already 
considered the petitioner's prizes and awards above under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Counsel has never 
7 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. 
Page II 
asserted, and the record contains no evidence to suggest, that the petitioner's prizes or awards constitute 
a one-time achievement, defined as a major internationally recognized award. Thus, the petitioner's 
prizes and awards cannot serve as the sole evidence of eligibility. As prizes and awards are a separate 
criterion, merely competing successfully as a member of a team cannot be considered evidence of a 
leading or critical role for that team. 
The petitioner has not documented that he was selected for a specific leading role on the team above 
and beyond mere membership on the team, or that he has contributed to the team at the level of a 
critical role, which is beyond merely competing successfully. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, the AAO will 
review the evidence in the aggregate as part of the final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is 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." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The entire evidence of record consists of awards, primarily in junior or youth competitions, and 
letters. None of the awards rise to the level of a one-time achievement, namely a major 
internationally recognized award. Thus, the awards by themselves cannot establish eligibility as an 
athlete. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, the awards were primarily in junior competitions where 
the petitioner did not compete against the most experienced and renowned members of his field. The 
letters are conclusory and add little information that is not already apparent from the awards or 
pnzes. 
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. The petitioner, a successful 
competitor at the youth level, relies on junior prizes and awards and the praise of three assistant coaches 
at American University. While this evidence may distinguish him from other youth c== the 
petitioner may not narrow his field to others with his level of training and experience. _is a 
Thus, it appears that the highest level of the 
Finally, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner has any experience as a coach, let alone 
experience successfully coaching athletes at the national level. The petitioner proposes to coach 
students at a high school. This evidence does not indicate that coaching is within the petitioner's area 
of expertise. 
III. 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 risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
wrestling coach 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 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a junior-level wrestler, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I )(A) 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.