dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifYing data delett.-d to 
prevent dem'lv nnwarranted 
invasion or p;;;:'::;vaai privacy 
PUBLTC (,()PV 
U.S. llcpartmcnt of Homeland Sccurit~; 
U.S. Cili;,enshir and Immigration SOVil'l':-' 
Adrninistrative i\ppc;ll~ ()Ilil'l' (AN») 
20 Massachuscll.-. 1\\1.:: .. N.\\-' . ~lS 2(JlI() 
Washingllln. DC 20."2'l-2()()() 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: Ollice: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
JUl 3 0 2012 
IN RE: Petiti{)ncr: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant to 
Section 203(h)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, H U.s.c. ~ 1153(h)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of tbe documeills 
related to this mailer bave 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 officc. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied thc law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motioll to reopen in 
accordance witb tbe instructions on Form \-29013, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $h30. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please he aware that 8 C.F.R. § I03.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 
30 days or the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Tbank you, 
~~ 
Perry Rbew 
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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.s.c. ~ IIS3(b)(l )(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)(I)(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. t; 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 provides a statement and submits additional evidence. For the reasons discussed 
below, upon review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted on appeal, the AAO upholds 
the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not established eligibility for the exclusive classification 
sought. The AAO notes that the filing date of the original petition was November 16, 2010. Therefore, 
none of the evidence the petitioner submitted on appeal and in response to the director's request for 
evidence regarding fights and/or matches in which the petitioner participated after the date of filing may 
be considered here. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. t; C.F.R. ** 103.2(b)(I), 
(12); Malter ofKatifihak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg' I Comm'r 1971). 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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, 
Page 3 
(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 ]() I" Cong .. 2d Sess. 5lJ 
(IlJlJO); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29,1991). The tenn "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. ILl.; 
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 ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AA(),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 "tinal merits detennination." [d. 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 sut1icient 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». 
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 this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
I 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. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and H C.F.R. 
~ 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or international~v recognized prizes or 
awardl' jiJr excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director found that ·'[tlhis criterion has been met since you have received lesser national and 
intemational awards."' Based on a review of the record of proceeding, the AAO must withdraw the 
findings of the director for this criterion. The record does not contain any primary evidence, such as 
copies of the awards, to support the petitioner's receipt of the awards claimed. 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. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craji 
ofCalijiJrnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). The AAO notes that the petitioner did submit 
copies of fight cards for a few of the fights, but these cards only demonstrate that the petitioner was 
scheduled to fight, not that he received any prizes or awards. 
The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
~ C.F.R. !i 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates 
that primary evidence docs 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The petitioncr has 
not established that evidence, such as copies of the certificates or photographs of the trophies, 
relating to the awards does not exist or cannot be obtained. Further, his self-serving statements do 
not equate to secondary evidence or affidavits. 
The petitioner also failed to submit evidence that the field, nationally or internationally, recognizes any 
of his awards. It rcmains the petitioner's burden to submit evidence addressing every element of a 
given criterion, including that a prize or award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
:: The petitioner docs not claim to meet or suhmit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page 5 
Puhlished malerial ahoul the alien in professional or major trade puhlicatio/lS or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field /iJr which classification is sought. Such evidnlce 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary trallslatioll. 
Although the director found that "[t]his criterion has been met," based on a review of the record of 
proceeding, the AAO must withdraw the findings of the director for this criterion. The plain language 
of the regulation requires that the published material "include the title, date, and author of the material, 
and any necessary translation." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) provides: 
Trallslatiolls. Any document containing foreign language submitted to l USC[S I shall 
be accompanied by a full English language translation which 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 Eng[ish. 
The translations of the submitted publications are uncertified and do not include the author's name. 
Therefore, the publications do not comply with the terms of the regulations at 8 C.ER. ~ 103.2(b )(3) 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and cannot be considered here. 
The petitioner also submitted a marked "[nterview National Television (Sport 
TV):' along with a letter from The letter fails to mention 
the television interview. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit any additional evidence to 
establish that the interview aired, that the interview was about the petitioner or how the interview 
qualifies as major media. 
[n response to for evidence, the petitioner submitted an article Irom the .IanuaJ) 
2004 edition of along with a certified translation. The petitioner submitted a letter 
from the editor with the original petition which states that the magazine is "one or 
the most circulate[ d] magazine [ s] specializ[ing] in the sport of martial arts." The self-serving nature of 
this information from the magazine's editor is not sufficient to demonstrate that the publication is a form 
of major media. See Braga v. POll los, No. CV 065105 S10 (concluding that the AAO did not have to 
rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
The AAO also notes that the letter was not written for the petitioner, but rather for another martial arts 
fighter. 
~er also submitted an online article from ed 
_ - results and main pics-" which simply lists the petitioner's name. Articles about 
competitions are not "'about" each athlete referenced in the articles. See gellerally Ne/iro-Plumpe v. 
Okill, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-Rll at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2(08) (upholding a finding that articles about a 
show are not about the actor). 
Finally, consistent with the statutory requirement, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires the material about the alien to appear in publications. Significantly, not all of 
Pagl: 6 
the criteria at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 CF.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 docs so as when it 
states at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the lonn of ··Ietter(s)." 
Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context. federal courts have upheld USClS' ability to interpret signilicance Irom whether the singular 
or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USc/S, Civ. Act. No. 06-21S8 (RCL) at 12 (D.C 
Cir. March 2n. 20(8): Snapnames.com fne. v. Chertojj; 2006 WL 3491005 at *]() (D. Or. Nov. 30, 
2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement lor "a" bachelor's degree or "a" 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of 
academic credentials). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ',\' participation, either individually or on a panel, as iI judge or the work oj' 
others ill the same or an allied field oj'specification for which classification is sougizt. 
The director found that the petitioner met this criterion based upon the submitted evidence. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[eJvidence of the alien's 
participation., .as a judge of the work of others." Based on a review of the record of proceeding, the 
AAO must withdraw the findings of the director for this criterion. 
In the initial filing, counsel stated that the petitioner "participated as a referee in several recognized 
events." As the petitioner submitted two similar letters from ___ the 
r of stating that the petitioner "had participated as ~s in 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel stated that the 
np,-t",,,,,,>n as a judge .... judging the perfonnance of other .. The 
from _and a letter from 
With regard to the letters from assert 
petitioner "participated as ajudge in a large tighting event on April 1,2004" and that he "was elected to 
participate as a referee (judge) in our event April 1, 2004, because of his outstanding knowledge of 
the sport, its techniques and rules." letter states that the "performed as a referee 
lor two events, the in 2006 and the _ 
in 2007, "judging the techniques and rules of other[] tighters." 
Mr._ letters in response to the director's request for evidence fail to explain wh) the events 
Irom 2002 and 2003 are no longer referenced and why the term "referee" was replaced "ith "judge." 
Counsel also fails to explain the change tram "referee" to "judge" in her letters. It is incumbent 
upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. 
Matter oj' Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing 
Page 7 
to where the truth lies. Id. Furthermore, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter ofLallrmllo, I'! I&N Dec. 
I (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Beyond these letters, the petitioner did not submit additional evidence, such as the names of the athletes 
evaluated or paperwork documenting his assessments. The submitted documentation does not establish 
that serving as a referee in the above instances equates to participating as a judge of the work of others. 
There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner actually judged the work of competitors, such as 
assigning points or determining winners, rather than merely enforcing the rules and maintaining a sense 
of fair play. The absence of evidence of the beneficiary's participation (such as judging slips. event 
programs identifying the hencticiary as ajudge. or ajudge's credential from the events) is a signiticant 
omission from the record. The benefit sought in the present matter is not the type for which 
documentation is typically unavailable and the statute specitically requires "extensive documentation" 
to establish eligibility. See section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is ··selt~scrving.'· See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328. 1332 (BIA 20(0) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage. but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available."' III. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien '.I' original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or busincss-rl'iated 
colllributionl' of major significance in the field. 
The director discussed the submitted evidence and found that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
evidence was qualifying. On appeal. the petitioner does not contest the director's tindings lor this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Notably, the petitioner also failed to provide additional 
evidence relating to this criterion in response to the director's request lor evidence for this criterion, 
which did not conclude that the petitioner had already met three. The AAO, therefore. considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. u.s. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (lIth Cir. 2(0»), citing 
United States v. Cllnningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CY-2731201l. 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintilrs claims were 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). See also Matter ofSori£lllO. I'! I&N Dec. 
764,766 (BIA 1988); Maller ofOblligbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 1988). 
Evidence ofthe display ofthe alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or ,Iho" Cl/,Ies. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel asserts that "[t]hc beneficiary's occupation is 
Page ~ 
not in the artistic field, therefore comparable evidence to the field of athletics can be submitted and 
should he considered for evaluation by the Service." 
The regulation at g C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows fll[ the submission of"eomparablc evidence" only if 
the ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Thus, it is the 
petitioner's burden to demonstrate why the regulatory criteria at 8 c.F.R. § 204,5(h)(3) arc not readily 
applicable to the alien's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the specific 
objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204,5(h)(3)(i) - (x), Several of the criteria arc written in 
broadly applicable terms, 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898 (Nov. 29,1991), 
The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as thcre is 
no indication that a sufficient number of the ten criteria specified by the regulation at tl C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) arc not readily applicable to the petitioner's occupation. In fact, the petitioner submitted 
evidence with the original Form 1-140 that specifically addresses five of the ten categories of 
evidence set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), in addition to the display at artistic 
exhibitions category. Where an alien is simply unable to satisfy the plain language requirements of 
at least three categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role jiJr organiZilliol1s or 
eSlahlishmellls that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director discussed the submitted evidence and found that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
evidence was qualifying. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings lor this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Notably, the petitioner also failed to provide additional 
evidence relating to this criterion in response to the director's request for evidence for this criterion, 
which did not conclude that the petitioner had already met three, The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d 1228 n. 2, Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (plaintitrs 
claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). See also Maller oISorialllJ. 
19 I&N Dec. at 766; Matter ofOhaighena, 19 I&N Dec. at 537. 
Evidence of commercial Sllccesses in the performing arts, as shown hy hox office receipts or record, 
casselle, compact disk, or video sales. 
contains printouts from the internet showing that a DVD of the 
is available for sale. However, no evidence was submitted to show the ('(llmnlt'.r"1 
success of this DVD. 
Page 9 
In light of the ahove, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
B. Continue to work in the area of extraordinary ability 
This is an employment-based classification that requires that the alien seek to enter the United States to 
continue working in his area of expertise. Section 203(b)(I)(A)(ii) of the Act. It is "by virtue of such 
work" that aliens under this classification will substantially benefit prospectively the United States as 
envisioned under section 203(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Act. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Congress did not intend for aliens of extraordinary ability to immigrate to the United States and remain 
idle. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). While neither the statute nor the regulations specify that 
the employment must be full-time. minimal hours of employment as a hobby or incidental to the alien's 
primary source of income does not substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must he 
accompanied by 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. 
While the record does contain evidence that the petitioner has participated in a few matches since his 
arrival in the United States, the petitioner did not provide clear evidence regarding his intentions to 
continue to work in the United States. The petitioner did not submit a letter from a prospective employer, 
evidence of prearranged commitments, or even a personal statement. Therefore, as an additional issue, 
the AAO finds that the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
See Soltane v. DO.!, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2(04) (the AAO maintains de novo review of all 
questions of fact and law). 
C. Prior P-l 
The AAO notes that the petitioner has been in the United States as a P-I nonimmigrant. a visa 
classification that requires the alien to perform as an athlete, either individually or as part of a team, 
at an internationally recognized level of performance, and that the alien seek to cnter the United 
States "temporarily and solely for the purpose of performing as such an athlete." See section 
214(c)(4)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1184 (c)(4)(A). While USCIS has approved at least one P-I 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. 
It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
Page III 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2(03); IKEA US v. US Dept. oIlustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter or Cill/rch Scientologv 
International. I Y I&N Dec. 593. 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS or any 
agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. I'. M(}/llgolllerv, ti25 F.2d 
IOti4, lOYO (6th Cir. 19ti7), cat. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthennore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a 
service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afi'd, 248 F.3d 
1139 (5th Cif. 20CH), cert. denied, 122 S.O. 51 (2001). 
C. Summary 
As the petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. the proper conclusion 
is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of 
evidence. Ncvertheless, the AAO will review the evidence in the aggregate as part of our final mccits 
determination. 
D. 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: (I) a '"Ie\cl or 
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 tidd oj expertise," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The director reviewed all of the evidence in the record and provided a detailed discussion of her 
findings in the final merits determination. After careful review of the record, the AAO affirms the 
director's findings. The classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 8 U.s.c. 
§ 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and t\ C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing the statute 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 
5,199\). 
Page II 
As the petitioner failed to satisfy even a single criterion, the AAO cannot find that petitioner is one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the top of his field or that the petitioner has sustained national or 
international acclaim, as required by 8 CF.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). Even assuming that the petitioner 
won the awards referenced in the record for which the petitioner submitted no primary evidence, the 
awards that predate the filing of the petition all date from 2006 or earlier and do not rise to the level of a 
major internationally recognized award. As such, they cannot by themselves establish eligibility. 8 
CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). They are also not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim in November 2010 when the petitioner filed the petition. 
The published material does not meet the requirements set forth at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and is not 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. Specifically. the record is not 
supported by multiple articles in national publications and there is no evidence that major 
newspapers have referenced him as being at the top of his field. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953,955-55 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
The evidence relating to judging in 2004 and 2006 is inconsistent and cannot serve as probative 
evidence indicative of sustained national or international acclaim in November 2010 when the 
petitioner filed the petition. 
Ill. 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 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 martial artist, 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)(l)(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.