dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
DATE: 
APR 1 3 2011 
Office: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
LS. n",.Hlrtlfll'nt 1)1" lIonwland "'('fllrij~ 
l ,I _So Cili/cll'-,hq' :lml 111\1111,"'1 ,ill< '11 ."h'l \'i, l'" 
:'\dnlllli\(Ll\l\'C ,\1'I'C,11\ ()I'i'I\.'c' I, \ \01 
.?!) \1.b~;l<jlll~(:(\~ \\'~', \. W .. \IS _:(l()il 
\\. (l"IHIl~:I:)IL l>( 2{):"-':'Q 20\)(1 
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. ~ 1153(b)(1 )(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 advi~at 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.s. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)( I lei) requires that any motion Illust 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
i(1 );'fA/(!,.), 
, \ 'v \. ~ 
. -"Perry Rhew 
C"- Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petItIon was denied by the Director, 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed, 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment -based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U,S,c. § 1153(b)(I)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. I The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
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. 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, the counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categorics 
of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent pmt, that: 
(l) 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, mts, 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, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last admitted 
to the United States on July 7, 2008 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States, 
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" 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. 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) Documentation 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 a judge 
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. 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; 
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. USC/S, 596 F.3d I I 15 (9
th 
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.2 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 mect those two criteria, 
thosc 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, US CIS 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 thelirJ 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 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)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at I I 19-I 120. 
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 nOllo 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. 2001), af}'d, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003): 
see also So/tane II. Do.l, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
~ 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 8 c.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on July 6. 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in karate. The petitioner submitted a July I, 2009 affidavit accompanying the petition 
stating: "I am one of top athletelkarate player, renowned karate coach/instructor and well known 
karate experts in_ The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following 
categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)3 
DocllInellfalion of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or intenl{ltionlllly 
recognized prizes or awards.f{Jr excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
I. Fill-in-the-blank certificate stating: "[The petitioner I has been awarded this certificate 
for securing first position in fifth Regional Karate Competition held from 205810 1129 
and 
2. Fill-in-the-blank certificate stating: "On the aw;pi(;iOllS occasion of Happy New Year 
2057 BS. Ithe petitioner] representing from awarded 
this certificate for successful in securing 
organized by 
3. stating: "On the aw;pi(;iOllS 
2054 BS. I the petitioner] representing 
this certificate for successful in 
organized by 
4. Fill-in-the-blank "Certificate of M(~ritIParti(;ip:ati(m 
I the pellllLlllel 
5. 
6. 
7. Certificate of Participation certifying that the petitioner "participated in the 8th 
20th August - 27th August 2007." 
'The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in (hi~ 
decision. 
Page 6 
8. 
9. 
for [the petitioner's I contrihution to the 
certifying that the petitioner 
in June 2003. 
~p,cht">rw that the petitioner "participated in the 
in March 2003. 
cip'ati.on." presented to the petitioner "for participating in the. 
in November 1997. 
12. Fill-in-the-hlank certificate PH!sente:d pell([()l1(!r "for standing I" Position in the 
the 
iiiIiIiIiiY [sic] during 
17. Novemher 28, 2009 letter from 
_ stating that the petitioner was as 
in 2003 and 2005, and Instructor" in 2007. 
18. Certificate from the 
that the petitioner received a "Best Referee - 2007" 
19. Certificate from the 
_ stating that the petitioner recei 
- 2007." 
and secured I" 
Regarding items 1, 4, 5, the terms "Regional" and "District" imply that the fill-in-the-blank 
certificates suhmitted by the petitioner are regional awards rather than nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Further, the 
petitioner's July 1, 2009 affidavit accompanying the petition specifically identified items 12 - 15 
as "Local and Regional Level Awards." With regard to items 1 - 6 and 12 - 15, the record does 
not include supporting evidence demonstrating the significance and magnitude of the specific 
competitive categories won by the petitioner. For instance, there is no evidence of the official 
comprehensive results from the preceding competitions indicating the total number of entrants in 
the petitioner's competitive category or weight division. Moreover, a competition may be open 
to athletes from throughout a particular country or countries, but this factor alone is not adequate 
to establish that an award or prize is "nationally or internationally recognized." The burden is on 
Page 7 
the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and achievement associated with his fill-in­
the-blank award certificates. The submitted documentation does not establish that the 
petitioner's awards were recognized beyond the context of the events where they were presented 
and therefore commensurate with "nationally or internationally recognized" prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field. 
In regard to items 7 - 11 and 16, there is no evidence showing that these certificates arc 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. rather than 
simply acknowledgments of the petitioner's participation in the competitions. 
17, we note that the November 28,2009 letter from the Chairman of the 
_does not include a full address, a telephone number including area code, or any other 
information through which its author can be contacted. Further, unlike many of the other letters 
submitted with the petition, the Chairman's letter was not submitted on organizational letterhead. 
Rather than submitting primary evidence of his awards from 2003, 2005 
and 2007, the petitioner instead submitted an 
existence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SotJici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158,165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalijc)rnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The November 28, 2009 letter from the Chairman of the 
not comply with the preceding regulatory requirements. 
Finally, regarding items 1 - 19, the petitioner did not submit evidence of the national or 
international recof{nition of his particular awards. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally 
recof{nized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. 
In this case, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's awards are 
recognized beyond the presenting organizations and therefore commensurate with nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
In light of above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation ()f" the alien's membership in associations in the field Fir which 
classif"ication is sought, which require outstanding achievemcl1ls of" their 
members. as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
Page 8 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average. 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a membership eard and qualification certificate (2003 
he earned the 2nd Dan (Second Degree) Black Belt designation from the 
The petitioner's qualification certificate states: 'The above named 
person is awarded the stated qualification by the rules of this association for having completed 
the study and satislactory demonstration of the necessary standards." IEmphasis added. I The 
petitioner also submitted a membership card and 1998 indicating that he 
earned the 1st Dan Black Belt designation from the The petitioner's 
proficiency diploma states: "This is to certify that Ithe petitioner] has shown Proticiencv in 
& Attained the Rank of Black Belt 1st Dan (Sho·Dan) as granted 
[Emphasis added.] We cannot conclude that completion of one's 
studies, "satisfactory" demonstration of standards, and showing skills "proficiency" constitute 
outstanding achievements. 
On appeal, 
President, 
7, 2009 letter from 
It takes four years of regular training to earn the Black Belt, and one has to passed I sic I 
each test respectively. For the Black Belt test can be provided [sic I 
Black Belt Committee. The test includes Basic (Kihon Basic), Fighting Stance ('~U""H~) 
lukumute, Ipon Kumute (High Technique), Kata. [The petitioner I attended the exam of 
Black Belt exam on November 28, 1998 and he performed excellently in the exam. After 
completion of this course and continuous significant contribution in his field with more 
specialization in the field of karate, [the petitioner] has passed his second Dan Black Belt 
test with highest performance. 
Once again, we cannot conclude that demonstrating the required skills and training to achieve the 
next proficiency level equates to outstanding achievements. The submitted evidence does not 
establish that the and the 
require outstanding 
international experts in the petitioner's field. 
he meets this criterion. 
as Judged by recognized or 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that 
Published material about the alien in professiorl£ll or major trade publica/ions or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor which c/as.lijiclllioll is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of" the material, alld 
any necessarv translation. 
Page 9 
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 
submitted a three-sentence article in 
and dated June 17, 2008, but the author of the material was 
entitled _ 
not identified as 
plain language of this regulatory criterion. The article lists the petitioner's name 
among eight members and officers of the .. The article does not include any 
further information about petitioner and is primarily about the _ Association in general. 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), however, requires that the published material be "about 
the alien."s In response to the director's for evidence, the petitioner submitted an undated 
letter from the Managing Editor stating: "The is 109 
years old broadsheet news paper [sic] owned by the The daily has the 
highest circulation in the country." The self-serving in the letter from 
the Managing Editor is not sufficient to demonstrate that his newspaper is a 
form of major media. USCIS need not rely on self-serving assertions. 6 
The petitioner also submitted two articles alleg1edl.y . shed in _ and 
on June 17, 2008 and entitled but the ccrt i . 
language translations accompanying these articles do not specify the names of the preceding 
publications. Further, the authors of the two articles were not identified as required by _he lain 
language of regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The June 17, 2008 aI1icle in 
(co~ of three sentences) lists the petitioner's name among five members and officers of 
the_ Association. On the submits a September 3, 2009 letter from the 
"Ass!. Senior Sub-Editor" of stating: 'The IS 
reputed Vernacular national ished 
publishing in different cities, together." The 
self-serv' circulation claim provided in the letter from the "Ass!. Senior of_ 
is not sufficient to demonstrate that his newspaper is a form of major media. With 
June 17, 2008 article' (comprised of four sentences), we note that 
the article lists the petitioner's name among nineteen members and officers of the _ 
Association. The preceding articles do not include any further information about the petitioner 
4 Even with nationally~circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. for 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County. 
Virginia. for instance. cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county . 
. \ See. e.g .. Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CY-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (0. Nev. Sept. 8,2(08) (upholding a linding Ihat 
article:.. about a show are not about the actor). 
" See Brngll l'. POIIios. No. CY 06 5105 SJO (c. D. CA July 6. 2(07) ajJd 2009 WL 604RRR (9'" Cir. 2(XI9) (concluding 
that the J\J\O did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as 
major media). 
Page 10 
and are primarily about the_Association in general. Moreover, there is no evidence (such 
as objective circulation information from an independent source) showing the distribution of 
_ and relative to other _ media to demonstrate that the suhmitted 
articles were or major trade publications or other major media. 
In I ight of ahove, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence or the alien '.I participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge or 
the work (~r others in the same or an allied field or specification /i)r which 
classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted certificates indicating that he completed a _ Karate Federation 
Referee Refresher Course" (2007), a Masters Training Course for Referees & Coaches organized 
by the Karate Do Association and the _ Karate Federation (2005), an 
"Educational Course in Traditional Martial Arts" (2005), a referee course offcred by the_ 
Karate Federation in which he 
demonstrated "understanding of the rules and their proper applications to the noted level" (2005), 
a World Karate Confederation Masters Training Course for Referees & Coaches (2003), and a 
·e held under the authority of the 
eree Council" (2002). The petitioner's courses 
met the educational requirements for becoming a referee or a coach, hut it does 
not constitute evidence of his participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work 
of others in his field. Certificates indicating that the petitioner had training as a "refcree" or 
"coach" do not establish that he actually participated as a "judge." 
The petitioner also submitted the following: 
1. Fill-in-the-blank 
2. "Certificate of MeritiParticipation" identifying the petitioner as 
being on the jury "during the 
2063" organized by hro"rh 
3. Fill-in-the-blank 
4. 
5. 
during the 
as a referee "during the 
organized by branch 
~el.lllllJllI"l as a referee "during the 
organized by 
peIJll<lJII1cr· as a referee 
2005 ... held in 
Page 11 
organized by 
5th _ 10th January 2005." 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
petitioner 
1 1 UClp:ale:o as a referee at the 
12. Fill-in-the-blank "Certificate of Participate/OfficiallMerit" identifying the petitioner 
as a referee the 
2001 organised 
7 We note that the is not the national governing body for the sport of karate in the United 
States as recognized by the United States Olympic Committee. Rather, the 
_ holds this designation. The_website states: 
On April 14th, 1996, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Board of Directors upon the 
the USOC Membership and Credentials Committee voted to :-.am:liol1 the 
newly formed 
unanimous <om"","'] 
_ responsibilities include: 
as a member. This membership met with 
sport of Karate in the United States. the 
The development and fielding of Junior and Adult Karate Athletes to 
international events and competitions representing the United States, Serving all member~hip dasses 
represented on the Board of Directors, Representing the United States within the designated International 
Federation (I.F.) under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee (LO.C.). landl National 
Championships. As the largest Karate Organization in the United States in "nature. quality. scope and 
strength" as determined by the Amateur Sports Act and the USOC. the _ remains a nonprofit 
50le3 organization open to all martial arts practitioners. It is an organization dedicated to the growth and 
promulgation of all types of Karate in our country. Some of the competitive opportunities through the 
_ include: The World Championships, The Pan American Games. The Pan American 
Championships, The World Cup, The World Games, The University Games, The Police Games. The .Ir. 
Cadet International Championships, The Ir. World Championships, The Jr. Olympics .. 
Sec ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• accessed on March 31. 
2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
-Page 12 
item 2, the heading on the certificate misspells "National Sports Council" as 
Councial." Regarding item 5, an additional signature other than that belonging 
"1'1''','1' on the certificate in the signature line above Grandmaster_ 
In regard to item 10, the certificate misspells 
"Mayor" as " It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. MatterofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast 
on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. at 591. 
Items 1,2, and 7 identify the petitioner as a juror; items 3 - 5, 9, 11 and 12 identify him as a 
referee; and items 6, 8 and 10 identify him as a judge. The record lacks official competition 
rules for the preceding championships indicating the specific responsibilities for a juror, judge, 
and referee. For instance, the submitted documentation does not establish that serving as a 
"referee" in the above instances equates to participating as a ')udge" 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. Further, the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence specifying the 
nature of his participation in the championships, the names of the individuals whose work he 
judged, and the competitive divisions or categories to which he was assigned. Merely submitting 
fill-in-the-blank certificates stating that the petitioner served as a juror, referee, or judge without 
evidence demonstrating who he actually judged is insufficient to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence (if the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business­
related contributions of maJor significance in theji·eld. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support from his personal contacts discussing his 
achievements as a karate competitor and instructor and his activities in the sport. Success and 
dedication to one's sport, however, are not necessarily indicative of original contributions of major 
significance in the field. The record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original 
athletic contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted his field. 
In his initial letter dated January 12, 2009, •••••• 6
th 
Degree Black Belt and 
President of Association, states: 
It is my great pleasure to write a recommendation letter for one of the most talented 
Karate players of The petitioner has earned the Black Belt 
(Second Dan) . Association on June 20,2003 and worked 
jury, judge, referee and expert panel in many tournaments in_and abroad. Also [the 
petitioner 1 has won many national and international gold medals in tournaments. 
Page 13 
Regarding my knowledge is concerned [the petitioner] has big future potentiality in the 
field of karate any country in the world. 
The letter from _does not specify exactly what the petitioner's original contributions 
in the sport of karate have been, nor is there an explanation indicating how any sllch 
contributions were of major significance in his field. It is not enough to be talented and to have 
others attest to that talent. An alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet 
this regulatory criterion. 
Minister states: 
I am very pleased to write a recommendation letter for renowned Karate athletes [sic 1 of 
_ Ithe petitioner]. Regarding my knowledge is concerned [sicl he is one the best 
Karate athletes of_ 
I hail from the same district where [the petitioner] was born. I have known him since his 
childhood. [The petitioner] was also played [sic] fhe significant role to develop the sports 
tourism concept in_ He is generous, honest, hard working person. I personally 
attested he is a person with high moral characters. 
does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's original work 
has impacted the' There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's sports tourism 
work constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. 
tate Minister states: 
delegated [sic] to write a support recommendation letter to [thc petitionerl I am very 
resident 
Karate n,"vpr 
. of_ He is a bonafied [sic 1_ 
He played the signific~ to develop the Karate and Kick 
would like to strongly recommend that [the petitioner 1 is one of the 
"'"'CU'<-[sic] in. 
not explain how the petitioner's contributions to karate and kick 
does his letter contain examples of how the petitioncr's athletic 
In his initial letter 
Member Secretary, 
identified himself as Acting 
>."':!ll)!, 'UI~jJ'Jll recommendation letter to 1 the I am very delegated [sic] to write a 
petitioner I, permanent resident of 
bonaficd 1 sic 1 player 
and national Karate and Kick Boxing 
develop the Karate and Kick Boxing in 
Instructor of 
district of_ He is a 
pmrtic;ip.ate:d in various regional 
He played the significant role to 
petitioner] worked as a Karate 
Page 15 
competitive awards, We note that the petitioner's karate awards have already been addressed 
under the regulatory criterion at 8 CFR, * 204.5(h)(3)(i). Here it should be emphasized that the 
regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for 
awards and original contributions of major significance in the field, USCIS clearly does not view 
these criteria as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three 
separate criteria. 
reqlue~;t for evidence, the petitioner submitted an August 20, 2009 
letter from First Secretary, Embassy of_Washington, D.C., but 
the letter did not include an address, telephone number, or any other information through which 
the author can be contacted. states: 
IThe petitionerl has been associated with_Karate Federation under the _ 
__ of _ [The petitioner] took part in many national and international 
~ns including World Championships held in 
I The petitioner J is the two times Gold Medal Winner 
[The petitioner'sl performances have been highlighted by various widely circulated News 
I in 
He is a truly dedicated and a bona fide Karate Player and Instructor and his contribution 
to athletic is exemplary. 
As previously d,,·. CLlSSt:U 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter (~rSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes an additional letter from 
dated December 2, 2009 stating: 
IThe petitioner I currently serves as a senior instructor 
only three instructors of his hierarchy registered under 
Page t6 
IThe petitioner] has trained several karate players and many among them have received 
awards in several internationally acclaimed competitions. Below listed are few of the 
achievements received by players who obtained training from [the petitioner I: 
Gold karate 
Silver karate 
S il ver karate 
S il ver karate 
Gold karate 
Gold karate 
Silver karate 
Silver karate 
Silver karate 
Silver karate 
2006 
The reputation of the preceding competitions is undocumented and there is no primary evidence 
either that the petitioner has coached any of these individuals or of the awards purportedly won 
by them. Further, there is no evidence of the official comprehensive results from the 
competitions indicating the total number of entrants in the petitioner's athletes' competitive 
categories or weight divisions. While the petitioner may have instructed students, competed in 
tournaments, and participated in karate training, these activities do not equate to "original" 
athletic contributions of major significance in the field. Rather, the petitioner was competing in, 
learning, and teaching a well established martial arts style. According to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major 
significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and. thus. 
that it has some meaning. The submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioncr's spccific 
contributions in the field were original, such as a new method of instruction or modified karate 
techniques. Further, there is no evidence demonstrating that any of his contributions were of 
major significance in the field, such as through the widespread adoption of his specific methods 
of instruction. Mastering and subsequently teaching an existing martial art form is not 
demonstrative of an original contribution to the field. While the letters of support indicate that 
the petitioner is knowledgeable and skilled in karate, there is no evidence showing that his 
impact on the sport is commensurate with original athletic contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
The opinions of the petitioner'S references 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 bcnefit sought. Id. The submission reference letters supporting the 
Page 17 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter or v­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony docs not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware 
of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent 
experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a karate competitor or instructor who 
ha, 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, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of'the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
,ubmitted a July 4, 2008 article by him entitled 
allegedly published in 
English language translation accompanying the article 
publication. Further, there is no evidence showing that 
or major trade publication or some other form of 
June 8, 2008 article by him entitled 
published in Once again, the certified English language translation 
accompanymg the article does not specify the name of the publication. In response to the 
director's for evidence, the petitioner submitted an undated letter from the Managing 
Editor stating: "The is 109 years old broadsheet news 
paper [sic] owned by the Government The daily has the highest circulation in the 
country." As previously discussed, the circulation claim provided in the letter from 
the Managing Editor of not sufficient to demonstrate that his newspaper is a 
form of major media. USCIS need not rely on self-serving assertions.s There is no evidence 
an independent source) ,howing the distribution of 
relative to other _ publications to 
demonstrate that the articles were published in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. Moreover, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
requires "[eJvidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field." [Emphasis 
added.] Generally, scholarly articles are written by and for experts in a particular field of study, 
are peer-reviewed, and contain references to sources used in the articles. In this case. the record 
lacks evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's works were peer-reviewed, contain any 
references to sources, or were otherwise considered "scholarly." Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established that he meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/i)r organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputatioll. 
, See Braga I'. Poulos, No. CV 06 S IDS S10 (C. D. CA July 6, 200?) aff d 2009 WL 604888 (9'" CiL 2(XlY) (concluding 
that the A1\O did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's <.,latus as 
major media). 
Page 18 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an August 26, 2009 
letter from stating that the petitioner "holds the of Vice-President and is 
one of the multidynamic members" of the 
However, the left sides of January 
specifically identify as the "Vice 
_Association. It is upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies 
record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Doubt cast on any aspect 
of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of 
the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Jd. at 591. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a December 5, 2009 letter 
This is to verify that [the petitioner] is the 2nd Dan Black Belt and Vice-President of 
Association, which is affiliated to_sports Council, 
vmmc COffirimTI:ee; 1VI1l]ISlry of Sports of_ World karate Federation, and 
me,rican Karate Federation. There are more than thirty thousand players registered in 
and 330 players have achieved black belt. 
Currently, [the petitioner] is the senior instructor of our organization. With his 
outstanding service and knowledge, he has acclaimed several international awards and 
established himself as an . renowned referee. He has also reccived Masters 
in Arts from Attracted by his talents in different fields, 
trainings and karate players want to receivc training 
from him. In fact, his trainees have to secure several domestic and international 
awards. It is not an overstatement that [the petitioner] is the best instructor of __ 
karate in Nepal and a marvelous official as the vice-chairman of this organization 
dedicated to the development of the sport in_ 
The petitioner also submits a December 5, 2009 letter from 
Secretary, National Sports Council, _ stating: 
I am very pleased to inform that [the petitioner] is one of the 
[The petitioner] had been nominated as the Vice President 
Member 
and elected as the Vice President of Association. His 
duties and responsibilities in the organizations are to organize the National level of 
tournaments, referee clinic, seminars, co-ordination with other national and international 
organizations, special training to coaches, work in jury and expert panel of those 
organizations. 
[Emphasis added.[ 
Page 19 
The December 5, 2009 letter states that the petitioner was "nominated" as 
V ice President V ice President but there is no documentary evidence 
showing that he had performed in a leading or critical role for the association as of the petition's 
2009 filing date. Further, while the preceding December 5, 2009 letters from_ 
state that the petitioner is the Vice-President 
Association, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner OC<CUI:J1Cll 
at time of filing the petition9 Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Commr. 1971). A petition 
cannot bc approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
Malter (Jf"izummi. 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further providcs. citing 
Matter o( Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that comc 
into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Even if the 
establish that he had served as Vice President of both the 
Association and the Association as of the petition 
there is no documentary evidence showing that these associations 
reputation. The letters of support provide general information about the 
.ssociation, but there is no supporting evidence showing that the pr,:ce,dinlg a:"U'LloIIIU'II: 
distinguished themselves from other martial arts organizations. 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. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signilicontiv high 
remuneration fiJr services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a July 4, 2008 letter from 
Contemporary Legal Service (P) Ltd.,_stating: 
Advocate. 
In this regard this letter is being written about [the petitioner's 1 mcome and financial 
positions in his profession. 
aUlJIlllng report and his contract/appointment letters, 1 found that he is 
(In words twenty hundred thousand only) _currency 
29,133.28) annually. In addition he is a nice tax payer and has 
a good credit. His income is considered as a best earning in comparison with other fellow 
Karate and Kick-boxers. 
'J The left side of 
President. 
was unaccompanied by "the auditing reporf' and "tax payer 
there is no documentary evidence of the earnings comparison _ 
relied upon to conclude that the petitioner's income was among the "best" in his 
previously discussed, going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
De(:ember 5, 2009 letter submitted on appeal now identifies the petitioner as Vice 
Page 20 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Malter or 
Sofjiei, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The petitioner also submitted an October 18, 2005 letter from stating: 
that Ithe petitionerj has worked as Karate Instructor 01'_ 
Karate from March 10th, 2001 to June 20th, 2005. We paid the 
AIC pay check to [the petitioner] as a monthly salary (annually. 
_which is equivalent to US $ 820. 
The petitioner's initial evidence also included a July 3, 2008 letter from 
stating: 
This is to certify that [the petitioner] has been working as a Karate Instructor in_ 
1st Dec. 1998 to till date. 
* * * 
For his fine wor~ AlC cheque of_to Ithe petitioner I as a monthly 
salary, annually _ which is equivalent US$ 2580.64. 
The petitioner also submitted a June 23, 2008 letter from 
stating: "This is to that 
Karate Instructor in the morning shift in 
till date .... He got_ ... as a WL'Bll.By '~"Irv 
President, _ 
working as a 
17th March 2002 to 
In response to the director's request for evidence, fhe petitioner submitted a May 28, 200g letter 
fro~ Chartered Accountant_ stating: 
According to our review of I the 
sources for the 2007 from 
fellow Karatc in _ 
1 annual income, his income form diffcrcnt 
.. which is equi to 
lm,w;:" earning in comparison with other 
There is no documentary evidence of the earnings comparison ied upon to 
conclude that the petitioner's income was among the "highest" in As previousl y 
discussed, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjie;, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of 
a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no occupational earnings 
data as basis for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in relation to 
others in his field. 
Page 21 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a December 11, 2009 letter from ~reasurer 
of the_ Olympic Committee, stating: "According to the official record, these five sports listed 
below provide the most competent salaries for their instmctors:" --... letter does 
not indicate what is meant by the term "most competent salaries'~ which the 
data was compiled. The letter includes a chart listing salaries for karate, taekwondo, footbalL 
boxing, and cricket, but it does not specify the whether salary data represents mean or median wage 
data, or which percentile of athletes for each sport earn the salary amounts listed. Neve11heless, the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the petitioner to suhmit 
evidence of a "high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to 
others in the field." Salary information for those performing work in a different occupation with 
different responsibilities is not a proper basis for comparison. Rather, the petitioner must submit 
documentary evidence of the earnings of those in his occupation performing similar work at the 
top level of the field. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. CommL 1994) 
(considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Crimso/1 v. 
INS, 934 F. Supp. 965,968 (N.D. IlL 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other 
NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. IlL 1995) (comparing salary of 
NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
The petitioner also submits a December 3, 2009 letter from Treasurer,_ 
Karate Federation, . salary as number one among the organization's "highest 
ranked instmctors." letter does not identify the year in which the salary data was 
compiled. Furthcr, not include supporting financial documentation (such as 
payroll records or income tax forms) establishing the petitioner's actual earnings for any given 
period of time. As previously discussed, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Malter or S()ttici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Without reliable evidence of the petitioner's salary and a 
proper basis for comparison, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur 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 tcn categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we will next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) 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 CF.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)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kawriall, 
596 F.3d at 1119-1120. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation 
Page 22 
submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (vi), (viii) and (ix). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner faced top national or international karate competitors in general rather 
than limited to those competing in his particular karate style. Without evidence showing that the 
petitioner faced a significant pool of top karate competitors in _ the United States. or 
intcrnationally, we cannot conclude that the submitted awards demonstrate his sustained national 
or international acclaim. Awards won by the petitioner in age-restricted tournaments. in 
competitive divisions with only a limited pool of entrants. or in competitions not shown to have a 
level of stature and scope comparable to those identified on the 
website do not establish that he "is one of that small percentage 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor."JO See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). USCIS has 
long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 
Fed. Reg. at 60899. 11 Likewise, it does not follow that an athlete who has received awards in 
age-restricted competition, obscure tournaments, or event categories and divisions with only a 
small pool of entrants should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based 
immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that 
have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." Further, there is no evidence showing that 
the petitioner has received any prizes or awards in his sport subsequent to 2007. The statute and 
regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or intemational acclaim 
as been sllstained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) is not 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as of the filing datc of the 
petition. 
10 As previously discussed, the is sanctioned by the U.S. Olympic Committee and is "the National 
Governing Body for the sport of karate in the United States." The _ website identifies karate 
competitions such as the USA Open, the Champions Cup, the World Championships, the Pan American Game~, {he 
World Cup. and the World Games. 
_ accessed on March 31,20 ii, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
II While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent. we note that in Math'!' oj" Racine. 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995). the court stated: 
ITlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather. Racine's ahility as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL This interpretation is consistent with at lea~t one other court in 
this district. Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of Ihe term 
X eLR. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60X9X-Y'J. 
Although the prescnt case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and l'ircuiL the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 23 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), there is no evidence 
demonstrating the reputation, significance, and magnitude of the competitions, or the level of 
expertise of those who the petitioner evaluated as a referee, juror, or judge. Participation as a 
judge in local championships, age-restricted competitions, obscure tournaments. or events with 
only a small pool of entrants is not indicative of "that small percentage of individuals that have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." C.f, Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953. 954 
(Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 (USCIS has long held that even athletes performing 
at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard). Further. 
there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others 
subsequent to 2007. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that 
his national or international acclaim as been sustained. See section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the Act. 
S U.S.C § 1153(b)(i)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 
8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as 
of the filing date of the petition. 
In this case, the evidence of record falls short of demonstrating petitioner's sustained national or 
international acclaim as a karate competitor and instructor. The conclusion we reach by 
considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately 
is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The submitted evidence docs not 
establish that the petitioner's achievements at the time of filing were commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim in karate, or being among that small percentage at the very top of 
his field. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record docs 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 
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. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203 (b)(l )(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, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
aff'd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane 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. 
Page 24 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.