dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentor llomeland Security
U.s. CitizenshipandlmmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve., N.w.. MS 2090
Washington,DC 20s20-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigratiOn
Services
DATE: AUG 0 8 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office that originally decidedyour case. Pleaseheadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith the instructions on Form I-2903, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of %30. The
specific requirementsfor filing sucha motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou
Per ' Rhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on appeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
The petitionerseeksclassificationasan"alien of extraordinaryability" in athletics,pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director
determinedthepetitionerhadnotestablishedthesustainednationalor internationalacclaimnecessaryto
qualify for classificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitioner demonstratethe alien's "sustainednational or internationalacclaim" and present
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act and
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establish
thebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Thepetitioner'sprioritydateestablishedby thepetitionfiling dateisAugust19,2010. OnFebruary14,
2011, the directorservedthe petitionerwith a requestfor evidence(RFE). After receivingthe
petitioner'sresponseto the RFE,the directorissuedher decisionon June13,2011. On appeal,the
petitionersubmitsa statementon theFormI-290B indicatingthatabrief andadditionalevidencewould
follow within 30 days of the appeal;however, the AAO has not received a subsequentbrief or
additionalevidence. For the reasonsdiscussedbelow, the AAO upholdsthe director's ultimate
determinationthatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedhereligibility for theclassificationsought.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers.-- Visasshall first be madeavailable. . . to qualified immigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability. -- An alienis describedin this subparagraphif --
(i) the alien hasextraordinaryability in the sciences,arts,education,business,or
athleticswhich has been demonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been recognizedin the field through
extensivedocumentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enterthe United Statesto continuework in the areaof
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit prospectively
theUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrant visas as aliens of extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101stCong., 2d Sess.59
(1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Id.:
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's sustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major,internationalrecognizedaward)or
through the submissionof qualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filed underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion.1 With respectto thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
The court statedthat the AAO's evaluationrestedon an improper understandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspart of the initial inquiry, the court statedthat "the
properprocedureisto countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did) andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed to satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a final meritsdetermination. In this matter,theAAO will review the evidenceunder
theplain languagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed. As the petitionerdid not submitqualifying
evidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailed to satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary
requirementsbeyond those set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
11.ANALYSIS
A. Areaof Expertise
On Part 6 of the petition, the petitionerindicatedthat the proposedemploymentwould be as a
professionalNetballPlayer/Coach.Counsel'sbriefaccompanyingtheinitial petitionandin responseto
the RFE describedthe petitioner'sachievementsboth asa competitorandasa coach. An alien must
intendto continueto work in herareaof expertise.Section203(b)(1)(A)(ii);8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(5).
Performingascompetitorandcoachingarebasedon differentskillsets. Thus,competitiveathleticsand
coachingarenot thesameareaof expertise. This interpretationhasbeenupheldin FederalCourt. In
Leev.Ziglar, 237F.Supp.2d914,918(N.D.Ill. 2002),thecourtstated:
It isreasonableto interpretcontinuingto workin one's"areaof extraordinaryability" as
workingin thesameprofessionin whichonehasextraordinaryability,notnecessarilyin
any professionin that field. For example, extraordinaryability as a baseball
playerdoesnotimplythathealsohasextraordinaryabilityin all positionsor professions
in thebaseballindustrysuchasamanager,umpireor coach.
Id. at 918. Thecourtnoteda consistenthistoryin this area. Thepetitioner'scoachingachievements
occurredin 2001and2002. As a result,thepetitionercannotdemonstratesustainedacclaimasa coach.
Thus,herachievementsasacoachwill notservetoqualifyherfor theimmigrantclassificationsought.
B. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationally or internationallv recognizedprizes or
awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
This criterioncontainsseveralevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfy. According to theplain
languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),theevidencemustestablishthatthealienbethe
recipientof the prizesor the awards(in the plural). The clear regulatorylanguagerequiresthat the
prizesor theawardsarenationallyor internationallyrecognized.Theplainlanguageof theregulation
alsorequiresthepetitionerto submitevidencethateachprizeor awardis onefor excellencein thefield
of endeavorrather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The
petitionermustsatisfyall of theseelementsto meettheplain languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Thepetitionerprovidedqualifying evidenceunderthis criterionin theform of severalteamawardsfrom
1993- 1996asamemberof theRepublicof IrelandNetballAssociation(RINA) SeniorClubDivision,
UnitedStatesof
herselectionto
theUnitedStatesof America(USA)NationalNetballSquad,herselectiontotheEastCoastJaguars,her
The petitionerdoesnot claim to meetor submit evidencerelating to the regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot
discussedin this decision.
Page5
awardasthemostvaluableplayer(MVP)
AmericanFederationof NetballAssociations(AFNA), andbeingthemostvaluableplayer
the MINC 1()'hAnniversaryTournament. The director determinedthat the petitioner met the
requirementsof thiscriterion. TheAAO withdrawsthedirector'sdeterminationasit relatesto whether
the petitioner'sselectionto the two teamsconstitutesa prize or awardas contemplatedby the
regulation. The AAO also withdraws the director's determinationas it relatesto whetherthe MVP
awarditself is a nationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardfor excellencein thefield. TheAAO
departsfromthedirector'sdeterminationunderthiscriterionfor thereasonsoutlinedbelow.
Regardingthe team awardsfrom 1993- 1996 as a Senior Club Division member of RINA, the
petitionermustdemonstratethattheawardshereceivedgarnerednationalor internationalrecognition.
Thepetitionerparticipatedasa SeniorClub Division memberin what appearsto betheassociationthat
was formerly the nationalgoverningbody of netball in Ireland. This fact is insufficient to meetthe
plain languagerequirementsof this criterion. The AAO will not presumethe nationalor international
recognitionof a prize or an awardfrom the nationalscopeof the competitionwithout evidence
demonstratingthe award actually receivedrecognition at least on a national level. National and
internationalrecognitionresults,not from the issuingauthority,but throughthe awarenessof the
accoladein thefield at thenationalor internationallevel. Suchrecognitioncanoccurthroughseveral
means;for example,throughmediacoverage.Theonly evidencefrom theperiodof 1993through1996
relatingto thenationalor internationalrecognitionof oneof theawardsis in theformof a photograph
of the petitioner'steamand captionin a March 4, 1994newspaper,the EveningHerald. The photo
indicatesthe petitioner'steamwon the All-Ireland Seniortitle. While this is not the exacttitle of the
petitioner's league,it appearsto relate to the 1993 Premier Division Leaguechampionship. The
petitionerprovidedno information relating to the circulation or the distribution dataof the Evening
Herald andthus,the petitionermay not rely on the EveningHerald to establishthat this awardis
nationallyor internationallyrecognized.
The petitionerfailed to submit any evidenceto demonstratethat the following achievementsare
nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizes or awards:(1) the 2008 Agape Annual Netball
Tournament,(2) the2009USANA championship,(3) the2009RosCoffeyAwardissuedby theclub
for whichthepetitionerplayed,and(4) the As such,theseawardswill
notsatisfytheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Regardingthe mostvaluableplayer thepetitioner
provideda photoof theawardanda teamphoto,but shefailed to provideevidenceto demonstratethat
sheactuallyreceivedthisaward.Thisevidencealsosuffersthesameevidentiaryshortfallastheabove
evidence;specifically,therecordis deficientof evidenceestablishingthatthisawardenjoysnationalor
internationalrecognition.
t he netball
teams.Althoughthepetitionerestablishedtheexistenceof a formalselectionprocessthrougha review
panel,beingselectedto performon a teamis notcommensuratewith receivinga prizeor anawardfor
Page6
excellentperformancein the field. As the selectionto both teamsis not a prize or an awardas
contemplatedby the regulation,the petitionercannotdemonstrateeligibility relying on this form of
achievement.
RegardingtheMVP award , thequestionis not whetherthesport,
league,team,or tournamentin which the petitionerperformedare nationallyor internationally
recognized;insteadthe focus is on the awardthat documentedthe petitioner'sMVP status. The
evidencethepetitionerprovidedin supportof hereligibilityunderthiscriterionconsistsof:
• A photoof theaward,which doesnot bearthepetitioner'sname;
• An emailfrom indicatingthepetitionerwontheaward;
• A photowith captionfrom theNew York Netball websitenoting the petitioner'sreceiptof the
award;and
• A letter from . confirming the
petitioner'sreceiptof theaward.
Theevidence,whenconsideredasa whole,demonstratedthatthepetitionerwasthe recipientof the
award.It is apparentthatastheawardis issuedfor excellencein thefield,asit is for themostvaluable
playerof the tournament.The remainingquestionpertainsto whetherthe awardis nationallyor
internationallyrecognized.Nationalandinternationalrecognitionresults,not from the individual who
grantedthe award nor from the organizationunder which the award was issued,but through the
awarenessof the accoladein the eyesof a nation or of a group of nations. This can occur through
severalmeans;for example,throughmediacoverage. The only evidencethat the petitionerprovided
relatedto thelevelatwhich this awardis recognizedeithernationallyor internationallyis in theform of
anarticlepostedon TheWestIndianAmericanwebsite. Therecord,however,containsnoevidencethat
this websiteis a tradepublicationin netball,or otherwisereflectiveof the recognitionof this awardin
thefield.
Evenif theAAO weretoconcludethatthisMVP awardisqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion,the
plain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)requiresevidenceof "awards"in theplural,
which is consistentwith the statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidence. Section203(b)(1)(A)(i) of
the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural.
Specifically, the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §§204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require serviceon a single
judging panelor a singlehigh salary. Whena regulatorycriterionwishesto includethesingularwithin
the plural, it expresslydoesso as when it statesat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that evidenceof
experiencemustbe in theform of "letter(s)." Thus,the AAO caninfer thatthe plural in theremaimng
regulatorycriteriahasmeaning. In a differentcontext,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS'ability to
interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe singularor plural is usedin a regulation.SeeMaramjayav.
USCIS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158(RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008);Snapnames.com
Inc.v.Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at *l, *10 (D. Or. Nov.30,2006)(upholdinganinterpretationthat
the regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreign equivalentdegreeat 8C.F.R.
§ 204.5(l)(2)requiresasingledegreeratherthanacombinationof academiccredentials).
Page7
Consequently.the AAO withdrawsthe director'sdeterminationas it relatesto this criterionas the
petitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplain languagerequirementsof this criterion. Even
if theAAO acceptedthatthepetitioner'sawardsin the 1990swerequalifying basedon coverageof the
leaguein theEveningHerald,thepetitionerwould meetonly this singlecriterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major
media.relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classificationis sought. Suchevidence
shall includethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
This criterion containsthreeevidentiaryrequirementsthe petitionermust satisfy. First, the published
materialmustprimarily beaboutthe petitionerandthe contentsmustrelateto the petitioner'swork in
thefieldunderwhichsheseeksclassificationasanimmigrant.Thepublishedmaterialmustalsoappear
in professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia(in theplural). Professionalor major
tradepublicationsareintendedfor expertsin thefield or in theindustry.To qualifyasmajormedia,the
publicationshould have significant national or internationaldistributionand be publishedin a
predominantnationallanguage.The final requirementis that the petitionerprovideeachpublished
item's title, date.andauthorandif the publisheditem is in a foreignlanguage,the petitionermust
providea translationthat complieswith the requirementsfound at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The
petitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meettheplain languagerequirements
of thiscriterion.
Thepetitionerclaimedtheevidencerelatingto thiscriterionconsistsof anarticlefrom TheWestIndian
Americanwebsite,a 2010articlefrom the WallStreetJournal, a NetballAmericamarketingdocument,
andpressreleasesandpublicationsfrom The directordeterminedthatthe
petitionerfailedto meettherequirementsof thiscriterion. Onappeal,counselassertedthatnumerous
articlesin which thepetitioner'sgames"were annotated." Counselassertsthat netballis not "widely-
popularamongthe generalpublic" and that,therefore,the articlesaboutthe petitioner'sgamesare
sufficient. Counselcitesno legalauthorityfor theimplicationthattheAAO canwaive therequirement
that the published material be "about" the petitioner and appear in professionalor major trade
publicationsor othermajormedia.
The directornotedarticlesfrom theEveningHerald in herdecision,but did not referencetheevidence
counselidentifiedin the initial filing brief. As thedirectorpointedout, theEveningHerald articles
merelymentionthepetitionerbutthearticlesarenotabouther. Aspreviouslynoted,thearticlemustbe
aboutthepetitionerratherthanmerelyincluding informationaboutan eventin which sheparticipated.
SeegenerallyNegro-Plumpev.Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat7 (D. Nev.Sept.8, 2008)(upholdinga
finding that articlesabouta show are not aboutthe actor). Additionally, the petitionerprovided no
evidenceor analysisto supportthe positionthattheEveningHerald is a professionalor majortrade
publicationor othermajormedia.
The articlefrom TheWestIndianAmericanwebsitebriefly discussedthe petitioner'sreceiptof the
MVP award;however,the articleis not aboutthe petitioner. Additionally,the recordcontainsno
evidenceassertingTheWestIndianAmericanwebsiteis a form of majormediaor oneof the other
Page8
publicationtypesrequiredby theregulation.In referenceto the WallStreetJournal andthe Netball
Americamarketingevidence,neitherformof evidenceis publishedmaterialthatis primarilyaboutthe
petitioner. It is alsoimportantto notethattheevidencerelatedto the WallStreetJournal is actually
promotionalmaterialfrom NetballAmericareflectingthata storyaboutnetballappearedon the Wall
StreetJournal'swebsitewsj.com.Eachdocumenteithermerelymentionsthepetitionerwithinasingle
paragraphor containsa group photographof the petitionerwith a caption. Furthermore,the record
lacksevidenceto documentthateitherform of evidenceis oneof theregulatoryrequiredpublication
types.Regardingtheremainingevidencesubmitted,pressreleasesdonotconstitutepublishedmaterial
astheseare not formsof independent,journalistic coveragewith a listedauthoraboutthe beneficiary
relatingto herwork.
In view of the foregoing,the petitionerhasnot submittedevidencethat meetsthe plain language
requirementsof thiscriterion.
Evidenceof the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the work of
othersin thesameor analliedfield ofspecificationfor whichclassificationis sought.
The petitioner claims to meetthis criterion for thefirst time on appeal. The methodsvary by which
a petitionercanbe notifiedof evidentiaryrequirements.Forexample,a petitioneris consideredto
beon noticethroughthe specificrequirementsoutlinedwithin the regulations,or throughvarious
formsof communicationfrom USCISto apetitioneror applicantnotinganevidentiarydeficiencyor
requestingmore evidence. SeeMatter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988). The
regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)notified the petitionerof the specific filing requirementsto
demonstrateeligibility undertheextraordinaryability classification. In addition,the mstructionsto
the Form I-140 petition statethat the petitioner "must attachevidencewith [the] petition showing
that the alien has sustainednational or international acclaim" and then lists the ten regulatory
criteria. Finally, the director issued a requestfor evidence listing all of the regulatory criteria.
Therefore,the petitioner must claim every criterion that the petitioner would like to be considered
before the director. In instanceswhen the petitioner was notified of the typesof evidencethat are
requiredto demonstrateeligibility andwas afforded the opportunity to provide the evidenceprior to
the issuanceof an adversedecision,neweligibility claimswill not be consideredon appeal. See
Matter ofSoriano, 19l&N Dec. at 766.
If thepetitionerwould like for USCISto considerclaimsto additionaleligibility criteria,this must
beaccomplishedthroughthefiling of a new petition. Seeid. at 766. Cf Matter offimenez, 21 l&N
Dec. 567, 570 n.2 (BIA 1996)(finding that claims of eligibility for a waiver presentedfor the first
timeonappealarenotproperlybeforetheBoardof ImmigrationAppealsandthattheBoardwill not
issuea determinationon the matter.) Although the AAO maintainsde novo review of appellate
casesanda petitionermay supplementthe recordin regardsto previousclaims, a petitioner may not
raisea previously unclaimedeligibility criterion on appeal. Matter ofSoriano, 19l&N Dec.at 766.
Page9
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business-related
contributionsof major significancein thefield.
The directordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor this criterion and found that the petitionerfailed to
establishher eligibility. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindings for this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be
abandoned.Sepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d1226,1228n.2 (11thCir. 2005);Hristovv.Roark,
No. 09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30, 2011)(the court foundthe
plaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemon appealto theAAO). Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or
establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
This criterion anticipatesthat a leading role should be apparentby its position in the overall
organizationalhierarchyandthatit beaccompaniedby therole's matchingduties. A critical roleshould
be apparentfrom the petitioner's impact on the organizationor the establishment'sactivities. The
petitioner'sperformancein this role shouldestablishwhetherthe role wascritical for organizationsor
establishmentsasawhole. Thepetitionermustdemonstratethattheorganizationsor establishments(in
theplural)havea distinguishedreputation.While neithertheregulationnorprecedentspeakto what
constitutesa distinguishedreputation,Merriam-Webster'sonline dictionary definesdistinguishedas.
"markedby eminence,distinction,or excellence."3Dictionariesarenot of themselvesevidence,but
theymaybereferredto asaidsto thememoryandunderstandingof thecourt. Nix v.Hedden.149U.S.
304, 306 (1893). Therefore,it is the petitioner'sburdento demonstratethat the organizationsor
establishmentsclaimedunderthis criterionare markedby eminence,distinction,excellence,or an
equivalentreputation. Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meetthe
plain languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
In responseto the RFE, the petitioner amendedher claims under this criterion and claimed her
qualifying performancesas:
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto meettherequirementsof thiscriterion. Onappeal,
counselnotedthatthepetitionerhadsubmittedevidenceof thepetitioner'sserviceascoachandteam
captainfor winningnetballteams.
Page10
As notedabove,thepetitionercannotestablishsustainedacclaimasacoachandis primarilyanathlete.
Notwithstandingthis determination,this decisionwill discussthe etitioner's coachineacclaim under
this criterion. Regardingherchampionshipsasa coach
squad,thepetitionerprovidedphotographsof thetrophies,andanundatedarticlethatfailedto namethe
petitionerin aphotographcaption.Additionally,it is notapparentfromwhichpublicationthisevidence
originated. The recordis lackingevidenceto demonstratethe championshipsfrom the University
Collegeof Dublinthatthepetitionerclaimed.
Th etitioneralsoclaimedthatsheservedastheteamcaptainfor severalIrish Iæagueteams,for the
While the positionof coachandthe title of teamcaptain
connotea leadingor a critical role simply through eachposition's title, to assumethat the petitioner
satisfiedthis criterionpurely throughthe title or the position,would be overly speculative. The
petitionerfailed to provideevidencefrom anyof the teamsoutliningthe specificsof her dutiesthat
mightdocumentthatsheperformedin aleadingrolein thehierarchyof theoverallorganization,or that
might documenttheimpactherperformancehadon theorganization.Evenif theAAO wereto assume
thatthepetitionerperformedin a leadingor criticalrolein accordancewith theregulation,shedid not
provide evidenceto demonstratethat any of the organizationsor establishmentsclaimed under this
criterionenjoyadistinguishedreputation.
Therefore,thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplain languagerequirementsof this
cntenon.
C. ComparableEvidence
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(4)allowsanaliento submitcomparableevidenceif thealienis
ableto demonstratethat he or sheis unableto qualify for this classificationbecausethe regulatory
criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)arenot directlyapplicableto the alien'soccupation.It is the
petitioner'sburdento explain why the regulatorycriteria arenot readily applicableto her occupation
and how the evidencesubmittedis "comparable"to the objectiveevidencerequiredat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).Thedirectordiscussedthepetitioner'scomparableevidenceclaimsandfoundthat
thepetitionerfailedtodemonstratethatcomparableevidencewasapplicableto hercase.Onappeal,the
petitioner does not contest the director's findings for comparableevidence or offer additional
arguments.TheAAO, therefore,considersthisissuetobeabandoned.Sepzdveda40] F.3dat 1228n.2:
Hristov, 2011WL 4711885,at *9. Accordingly, the petitionerhasnot submittedqualifying evidence
underthis criterion.
D. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedtosatisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
Page11
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisento theverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Had the petitionersubmittedthe requisiteevidenceunderat leastthreeevidentiarycategones,m
accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determinationthat
considersall of the evidencein the contextof whetheror not the petitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthat the individual is oneof that small percentagewho haverisento the
very top of the[ir] tield of endeavor"and(2) "that the alien hassustainednationalor intemational
acclaimandthat his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise" 8C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.While theAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis notindicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentageat theverytopof
the field or, given when the petitionerwon her most significantawards,sustainednationalor
internationalacclaim, the AAO neednot explain that conclusionin a final merits determination.4
Rather,the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedentregulatory
requirementof threetypesof evidence.Id. at 1122.
Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetition
maynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of the
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter of
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)). Here, the petitionerhas not sustainedthat burden.
Accordingly,theappealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
4The AAO maintainsde novoreview of all questionsof fact andlaw. SeeSohanev.Dt)3,381F.3d143,145(3dCir.
2m4). In any futureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdiction to conducta final meritsdeterminationasthe
office that madethelastdecisionin this matter. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii), Seealso section 103(a)(1)of theAct:
section204(b)of theAct; DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1(2003);8
C.F.R.§ 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (2003);Matterof Aurelio, 19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingihat legacyINS,
now USCIS,is thesoleauthoritywith thejurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).