dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
Identify ic .:ah deleted to 
prevent c,: ly unwarranted 
invasion of ptirsonal privacy 
U.S. citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u. s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Thls is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. @ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Peny Rhew 
- t7 
!L Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on December 22,2008, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 3, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a wrestler. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien 
can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the 
sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, 
cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to 
at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a 
specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not 
be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Regarding this criterion, the director found that the awards submitted by the petitioner did not 
constitute lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence, including 
many awards won at the junior level. In addition, the director found that the documentary evidence 
submitted by the petitioner failed to establish the actual stature and prestige of the competitions, so 
as to establish the significance of the resulting awards. 
We agree with the director that awards at the junior level do not constitute lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards. Awards won by the petitioner in competition that were 
limited by his junior status do not indicate that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). There is no indication that the 
petitioner faced significant competition from throughout his field, rather than mostly limited to a few 
individuals in age-based or other similarly limited competition. USCIS has long held that even 
athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" 
standard. Matter ofprice, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
2 
 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
However, as argued by counsel, the petitioner submitted evidence of awards that were achieved at 
the non-junior or senior level. The petitioner submitted documentary evidence establishing that he 
competed and medaled in the following international competitions: 
1. Bronze medal at the 21" Grand Prix International Wrestling Tournament in Cairo, Egypt 
in March, 200 1 ; 
2. Silver medal at the Poland Open International Wrestling Tournament on November 13, 
2003; 
3. Gold medal at the 2004 Dave Schultz Memorial International Senior Greco Roman 
Wrestling Championshi in Colorado Springs, Colorado; 
f 
4. Bronze medal at the 18' Senior Asian Wrestling Championships from May 24-25, 2005, 
in Wuhan, China; and 
5. Bronze medal at the Commonwealth Wrestling Championships from June 30 to July 2, 
2005, in South Afhca. 
Based on the supporting documentary evidence, we disagree with the finding of the director 
regarding the lack of stature and prestige of the above-mentioned tournaments. The petitioner 
established that the tournaments are sanctioned by the International Federation of Associated 
Wrestling Styles, which is the governing body of international amateur wrestling. As evidenced 
above, the petitioner has established that he received lesser internationally recognized awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. Therefore, we withdraw the director's finding regarding this 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzjkation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orJelds. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner is eligible for this criterion based on his selection to the 
Indian Olympic team and Indian National team. The petitioner claims to have "participated and 
competed in the 2004 Olympics in Athens on behalf of India." In support of the petitioner's 
Olympic claim, he submitted a diploma from the International Federation of Associated Wrestling 
Styles for his "contribution to the success of second qualifying tournament for the 2004 Athens 
Olympic Games Greco-Roman Wrestling," in Tashkent, Uzkekistan from March 13-14, 2004. The 
petitioner also submitted a website page indicating that he placed fourth at the qualifying tournament 
as well as four photographs of his participation at the qualikng tournament. Finally, the petitioner 
submitted an article from India Express from Athens, Greece, which discusses the petitioner's 
Although the present case arose with the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. jj 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 5 
The petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzjkation is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
At the time of original filing, the petitioner, who performed the translations, submitted only 
summary English translations of newspaper articles from the Hindi language. The director requested 
that the petitioner submit full English translations pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), which requires 
that "[alny document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 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 
English." In response, counsel stated that summary translations were originally submitted because 
of the large expenses associated with the cost of translations (even though the petitioner performed 
the translations). Counsel further stated that the full English translations were submitted in response 
to the director's request. It is noted that the petitioner certified that he translated all of the articles 
the second time. 
We are not convinced that the articles were fully translated into the English language as required 
under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). For example, the petitioner submitted an article from The Daily, titled 
"Mukeshi's Golden Performances," dated August 14, 2000. The translation reflects two paragraphs. 
However, the original article reflects six paragraphs. In addition, the petitioner submitted an article 
fiom the Jansatta Newspaper, titled "Mukesh's Big Challenge in World Championships (New 
York)," dated August 27, 2001. The translation reflects six paragraphs. However, the original 
article reflects twelve ~araaa~hs. Furthermore. the ~etitioner submitted an article from NavBharat 
translation reflects four paragraphs. However the original article reflects five paragraphs, which are 
considerably longer than the translation. 
Because the petitioner failed to submit full English language translations of the documents, the AAO 
cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(3). 
Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
For the reasons stated above, we will only consider the evidence originally written in the English 
language. The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. An Internet article from PunjabNewsline, titled "18 Wrestlers Selected for World 
Championship," dated September 10,2006; 
2. An article from CityExpress, titled "Khatri is Class Apart," dated December 20, 
2002; 
3. An Internet article from The Hindu, titled "Wrestling: Mukesh Khaitri Claims Gold 
in Style," dated December 21,2002; 
Page 6 
4. An article from HT Rhanchi Live, titled "Medal Hunt Begins Today," dated January 
9,2003; 
5. Two articles from Sportsline, titled "A Reckoning Force of Indian Wrestling" and 
"Mukesh Spoils Jharkhand's Party," dated January 11 [unknown year]; 
6. An Internet article from The Hindu, titled "Asian Championship: Cheema is India's 
Best Bet," dated June 5,2003; 
7. An Internet article from Sportstar, titled "There's a Steady Improvement," dated 
August 2-8,2003; 
8. An Internet article from The Times of India, titled "Grapplers Ready for Olympic 
Glory," dated February 27,2004; 
9. An article from an unknown source, titled "A Medal is 4 Rounds Away," dated 
August 1 1 [unknown year]; 
10. An article from ExpressIndia, titled "Olympics: Khatri to Kickstart Indian 
Campaign in Wrestling," dated August 19,2008; 
11. An Internet article from Wrestling Information, titled "Dave Schultz Memorial 
International Brings Top Wrestling Nations to the U.S. Olympic Training Center in 
Colorado Springs, Colo., Feb 3-4," dated January 25,2006; and 
12. An Internet article from Guardian, titled "Track and Failed: The Making of a 
Sleeping Olympic Giant," dated July 25,2008. 
As it relates to the petitioner's claim of published material about him, counsel argues: 
To begin, in both the Request for Evidence and Director's Decision, the Service took 
the Petitioner to task for failing to b'provide information regarding the publications." 
Clearly, the Service imposed a burden on the Petitioner that is not found in the 
regulations with regard to published material about the Petitioner. While the Petitioner 
is required to provide the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation, there is not requirement that a Petitioner provided information regarding 
each publication, to include the "purpose" of the publication. 
We find the director's request to be reasonable and within his discretion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
!j 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[plublished 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 (emphasis added)." The articles submitted by the petitioner were from sources in India. The 
director's request is derived from his non-familiarity with news outlets in India. It is incumbent on 
the petitioner to establish that the articles were published in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media. We find no error on the part of the director for requesting evidence such as 
the "distribution" or "circulation" or "purpose" of the publications to establish that they are 
professional or major media. As it relates to the "purpose," the publication may simply be an 
advertising circular or an informational brochure rather than a publication such as a newspaper or 
magazine, in which case would not be sufficient to meet this criterion. 
Regarding Items 5 and 9, the articles do not comply with 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) as they do not 
contain the years of publications. For Item 9, while counsel claims that the article appeared in 
Indian Express on August 11, 2004, there is no evidence of what newspaper or magazine the article 
actually appeared. Regardless, the petitioner has failed to establish that these publications are major 
media. 
Regarding Items 1, 3,4, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, the articles merely mention the petitioner participating at 
events. Two of the articles mention the petitioner one time (Items 8 and 1 I), while five of the articles 
mention the petitioner along with numerous other athletes or wrestlers (Items 1,3, 6, 7, and 1 1). The 
articles simply either provide the names of wresters at upcoming events or provide the results at 
events. 
In two of the articles (Items 4 and 12), the petitioner is simply shown in photographs in connection 
with the articles. These articles, therefore, are not considered to be about the petitioner. 
Regarding Items 2 and 10, we concur with counsel that the articles are dedicated solely to the 
petitioner. However, both articles appeared in derivatives of Indian Express (CityExpress and 
ExpressIndia). The petitioner submitted a website page from the Embassy of India indicating that 
there are four major publishing groups in India; Indian Express is one of those groups with a daily 
circulation of 519,000. However, the articles submitted by the petitioner appeared in a derivative 
newspaper and website of Indian Express. We note that the website does not list CityExpress or 
ExpressIndia as a major publishing group in India. Nevertheless, the petitioner failed to submit 
documentary evidence that a daily circulation of 5 19,000 for Indian Express equates to major media 
when compared to the other statistics submitted into the record for other publications. The record is 
unclear as to the stature and circulation of these derivatives in comparison to other major media. 
Regardless, we are not persuaded that two articles about the petitioner, who has been an active 
competitor for more than a decade, are sufficient to establish the level of acclaim required for this 
highly restrictive classification. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
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 alliedJield of specijkation for which class$cation is 
sought. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his invitation in September 2007 at the 
Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado to train and compete against the top U.S. 
wrestlers. The director concluded that the petitioner's training and competing did not constitute the 
judging of the work of others. On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner was never invited to be a 
member of a team but for the purpose of training and competing. 
Nonetheless, the training of wrestlers is not the judging of the work of others in the same or an allied 
field of specification as required at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5@)(3)(iv). In this case, training entails physically 
preparing by instruction and practice while judging entails reviewing the work of others. 
Furthermore, the petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his appointment as a coach of 
the Charan Singh University, Meerut Team from November 18, 2006, to December 14, 2006. Similar 
to the reasoning above, the coachlng of wrestlers is not the judging of the work of others in the same or 
an allied field of specialization. The mere nature of evaluating student athletes as part of a daily and 
routine occupational responsibility does not rise to the level of acclaim required for this highly 
restrictive classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009)(Internal review of 
student work is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim and, thus, cannot 
serve to meet this criterion). 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a certificate from Noida College of Physical Education indicating 
that the petitioner officiated in the Ch. Charan Singh University Inter-Collegiate Wrestling Tournament 
from November 16-17, 2006. Without linther information, we do not find this certificate sufficiently 
establishes that the petitioner participated as an official. The certificate does not establish that the 
petitioner actually assessed the work or expertise of the individuals involved in the competition. If the 
petitioner acted as a referee and simply enforced the rules of the match and sportsmanlike competition, 
then his participation as an official cannot be said to have involved evaluating or judging the skills or 
qualifications of the participants. Without fkther evidence such as that he awarded points or chose the 
ultimate winner, evidence regarding officiating at the competition is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
Moreover, we note that the majority of the petitioner's claims for this criterion relate to his work 
with college level athletes. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an 
alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national 
or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these 
requirements. 
 The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or 
is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). For 
example, evaluating the work of accomplished wrestlers as a member on a national panel of experts is 
of far greater probative value than evaluating the work of collegiate or junior wrestlers. Id. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business related 
contributions of major signzj?cance in the3eld. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his fifth place world ranking in the 55 
kilogram in Greco Roman style in 2001. Based on the previously mentioned letter from - 
the petitioner was the first Indian ever to be ranked as high as fifth in the world. Counsel further argues 
that "[tlhe Petitioner's world-ranking and medal wins for wrestling were recognized in India (the 
second most populous country in the world) not only with national pride but as a first Indian wrestler, 
which clearly constitutes an original accomplishment." 
U.S. Olympic Education Center; Principal at Noida College of Physical  ducati ion;-1 
We note that the recommendation letters highly praise the athletic abilities of the petitioner. 
However, talent in one's field is not necessarily indicative of athletic contributions of major 
significance. We further note that while the letters generally claim "significant contributions," they 
offer nothing specific regarding his actual contributions. In addition, the letter from- 
indicates that the petitioner "has been valuable to in my career as an Olympian for 
the USA." However, documentation submitted with Y letter indicates that he retired in 
2004. The record is unclear as to the contribution the petitioner made to - career when 
was already retired before the petitioner entered the United States. 
The record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original athletic contributions that have 
significantly influenced or impacted his field. The letters of recommendation do not provide any 
evidence of the petitioner's original athletic contribution of major significance in his field. 
The letters of recommendation do not specify exactly what his original contributions have been, nor 
is there an explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of 
those with whom he has worked and trained: there is no evidence demonstrating that he has made 
original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does not 
indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other wrestlers nationally or internationally, nor 
does it show, for instance, that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
criterion. These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 (Commr. 
1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the 
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. Thus, the content of the experts' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major 
significance that one would expect of a wrestler who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, 
highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of 
major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Finally, while counsel also cites to coverage of the petitioner in various newspapers and awards won, 
these factors have already been considered under 8 C.F.R. §$204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iii). Here it should be 
emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate 
criteria exist for prizes and published material about the alien, USCIS clearly does not view these 
criteria as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that 
an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be 
meaningless. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel argues on appeal that the petitioner meets this criterion based on his participation in tr 
with USA Wrestling and the U.S. Army World Class Athlete Program. While the letters from wh 
and -, of the U.S. Army World Class Athlete 
Program both indicate that the petitioner "made a significant contribution" to their programs, the letters 
do not establish that the petitioner's roles or positions were leading or critical to these organizations as 
a whole. For example, the record does not include detailed position responsibilities discussing the 
nature of the petitioner's duties and significant accomplishments and the importance of his role to 
the organizations. The letters were general in describing the petitioner's roles. There is no evidence 
demonstrating how the petitioner's roles differentiated him from the other competitors and trainers. In 
this case, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he has performed in a 
leading or critical role to a degree consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 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.