dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 2 1 200h 
EAC 05 009 50647 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an AIien of Extraordinary AbiIity Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
thf; office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
1 Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualifL for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, counsel does not overcome the 
director's bases for denial. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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. 8 204.5(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. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion need not individually 
establish extraordinary ability. Rather, by requiring evidence to meet at least three criteria, the 
regulations presume that evidence relating to three criteria in the aggregate is sufficient. According to 
the statute, the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top level. Thus, while not every piece of evidence must individually establish national or international 
acclaim, the evidence must be at least indicative of or consistent with such acclaim if the statutory 
standard is to have any meaning. Ordinary accomplishments in the field cannot become extraordinary 
simply by being combined. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an athlete. The 
petitioner currently competes in mostly 5- and 10-kilometer charity runs. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the Jield of endeavor. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted certification from the Byelorussian Athletic Federation confirming 
that the petitioner "is a winner and prizewinner of a number of super marathon races in Belarus as well 
as in Europe (Poland, Germany, France, and Netherlands.)" The certificate then lists the petitioner's 
rank in four races from 1997 finish being 2znd place. The record also 
contains two similar letters from coach of the German national running team, and 
- coach of the Belarus National Team, listing several race results. While the director 
questioned the veracity of the letters based on their similarity, both letters are signed affirming the 
contents of the letters. Nevertheless, as conceded by counsel, the references are attesting to language 
that is not their own. Of more concern, both references assert that their opinions are based on a review 
of the petitioner's affidavit along with supporting documents. As such, neither reference is professing 
first hand knowledge of the petitioner's accomplishments. 
A Swiss newspaper, Biel Daily, reports that the petitioner won the Biel Marathon in June 2000. The 
petitioner also submitted the official results for this race. An undated article in the same publication 
reports another win in presumably the same race. Also in 2000, the petitioner finished second in the 
FILA-Marathon. The photo caption for a June 2001 article in Ultra-Marathon on the loth Swabian Alb 
Marathon reveals that the petitioner finished second in that race. The petitioner also provided the 
official results for this race, revealing that it took place in October 2000. An article on the 1 lth Swabian 
Alb Marathon in October 2001 published in the German magazine Running, reports the petitioner's 
third place finish in that race. The petitioner also submitted his certificate for this race. In 2003, the 
petitioner finished second in a 44 kilometer walking race in France. The petitioner competed in other 
European races and a mountain race in Alaska but finished below third place. 
In addition to the Alaskan mountain race, the petitioner competed in several "half-marathons" and five 
and ten kilometer charity runs in the United States. All of these races appear local to the Northeast, 
with the list of runners showing nearly all participants from New Jersey or Pennsylvania or local to 
1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
New York, with nearly all participants from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The petitioner 
also competed in the Philadelphia and Baltimore Marathons, which drew participants from fixther 
away. The petitioner, however, only finished in 3gth and 8" place, respectively. 
The director noted that some of the petitioner's rankings were age-based and concluded that the 
petitioner had not established the national or international significance of the above races. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that races typically include overall and age-based placements and that it is not 
reasonable to require evidence of the significance of the race beyond the testimony of experts. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner placed in the top three in several races overall, not simply in his age 
category. Counsel's remaining assertion, however, is not persuasive. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires that the awards or prizes be nationally or internationally - 
recognized. It is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of a given criterion; we will not 
resume that a race is nationally or internationally recognized. In both their letters, and 
m assert that the petitioner won "top awards at [the] world's top competitions that are unequivocally accepted as forums for the very best athletes." As stated above, however, both 
references appear to be relying on the petitioner's own affidavit. Neither reference explains which 
races were the most significant and why. For example, the races in the United States where the 
petitioner placed in the top three appear to draw racers almost exclusively from the Northeast. The 
record contains no information regarding the pool of competitors for the European races. Given this 
lack of information, the bare assertions of the petitioner's references are simply too vague. 
Nevertheless, competitions that are nationally or internationally recognized typically garner national or 
international media coverage. As stated above, the Swabian Alba Marathon results were published in 
Running and Ultra-Marathon. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel 
asserted that Running "is the major international publication in the sport." The unsupported assertions 
of counsel, however, do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). The record contains no circulation data for Running. Without evidence that the races 
in which the petitioner has placed in the top three enjoy national or international media attention or 
similar evidence, we cannot determine the significance of the petitioner's awards and prizes. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. Regardless, even if 
we were to conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion, which we do not, for the reasons discussed 
below, the petitioner falls far short of meeting any other criterion. An alien must meet at least three 
criteria to be eligible for the classification sought. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which classzfication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Page 5 
Initially, the petitioner submitted certification from the Byelorussian Athletic Federation confirming 
that the petitioner "took participation" on the national team of Belarus in 100 kilometer races and 
mountain races. The June 2000 article in Biel Daily reports that the petitioner has run races as a 
member of the Byelorussian National Team. In response to 
petitioner submitted the abovementioned letters from 
makes no mention of the petitioner's membership on a 
the petitioner "became a member and the front-runner of the Byelorussian National Team in the 100 krn 
super marathon." 
----- 
similarity. ~he director does not appear to have considered the initial evidence relating to this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that as "an athlete, not a writer," the experts chose to rely on "the wording 
proposed." Counsel continues that it is unreasonable to require different opinions regarding the same 
individual. 
ersuasive, we acknowledge that the 
e information in the letters. Of more 
that their information comes from the 
petitioner's own aflidavit; neither professes first hand knowledge of the petitioner's record despite Mr. 
claim to have served as Chief Coach of the Byelorussian National Team in marathon and 
super marathon races. 
Despite our misgivings about the letters from we acknowledge the 
submission of the certificate from the Byelorussian Athletic Federation and the newspaper article 
both affirming the petitioner's membership on the national team of Belarus. Membership on an 
Olympic Team or a major national team such as a World Cup soccer team can serve to meet this 
criterion. Such teams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous selection process. 
We reiterate, however, that it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that he meets every element of a 
given criterion, including, in this case, that he is a member of a team that requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. We will not 
presume that every national "teamM2 is sufficiently exclusive. 
The record lacks information regarding the requirements to join the Byelorussian national running 
team. For example, the record contains no information such as the number of individuals on the team, 
the criteria for joining the team and the selection process. Without such information, the petitioner 
cannot establish that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien j. work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessaly translation. 
2 Running is not inherently a "team" sport with a predetermined number of players. 
Page 6 
As stated above, a Swiss newspaper, Biel Daily, reports that the petitioner won two local marathons. 
An undated article in the same publication reports another win in another unidentified race. The photo 
caption for an article in Ultra-Marathon on the loth Swabian Alb Marathon in January 2001 reveals 
that the petitioner finished second in that race. An article on the 1 lth Swabian Alb Marathon in October 
2001 published in the German magazine Running, reports the petitioner's third place finish in that race. 
The director concluded that the articles were not "about" the petitioner and that the petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the publications were major media. On appeal, counsel references a German article 
and asserts that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) does not requires that the material be "a 
feature article" about the petitioner. Counsel fisther concludes that documentation "was provided to 
establish the caliber and impact of this professional publication." 
Counsel is not persuasive. First, the regulation requires that the published materials be "about" the 
alien. We must presume that the word "about" is not superfluous and that it has some meaning. An 
article that is clearly about a competition and mentions the petitioner in passing cannot credibly be 
considered "about" the petitioner. That said, the June 2000 article that appears to relate to the 
petitioner's win in a January 2000 race is sufficiently "about" the petitioner. The article appears in the 
Biel Daily. Contrary to counsel's assertion on appeal, the petitioner has not submitted any 
documentation regarding the publications in which the articles appear. Rather, in response to the 
director's request for additional evidence, counsel relies on his own unsupported assertion regarding the 
significance of Jogging. The article in Jogging, however, is not "about" the petitioner. The record 
contains no evidence of the circulation of the Biel Daily and its name suggests that it is a purely local 
publication reporting on the winner of a local marathon. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established 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 speczfication for which classzfication is sought. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submits a 2001 certificate 
fiom the Brest District Executive Committee, Department on Physical Training and Sport, awarding the 
petitioner "title of 1" category of sport judge in track & field athletics." The director concluded that the 
record lacked evidence of the significance of this title or evidence that the petitioner actually judged an 
athletic competition. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director improperly rejected a certificate from an athletic authority 
and asserts that if additional evidence was required "it should have been expressly requested." Counsel 
is not persuasive. The certificate was submitted in response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, which specifically requested "evidence to show that the [petitioner] has been a judge at a 
national or world class running event." It is unclear how the director could have expressly requested 
additional information about the petitioner's title in the request for additional evidence when the 
petitioner had yet to submit evidence of this title. 
We concur with the director that the certificate is not responsive to the request for additional evidence 
as it does not demonstrate that the petitioner actually judged a race. The petitioner was put on notice of 
this deficiency from the director's denial notice and fails to rebut that conclusion on appeal. Thus, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel references the letters from Mr. 
as evidence that the petitioner's achievements as a runner constitute a 
contribution of major significance to the field. Both references attest to the petitioner's "substantial 
contribution" to marathon running and mountain running. Both assert that the petitioner is unique in 
that he excels at both types of running. The record does not establish that the petitioner has placed in 
the top three in a mountain race. The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that 
he was influential in the field. After reaching this conclusion, the director noted the lack of evidence of 
endorsement deals. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in rejecting the reference letters, stating that running 
"is not as spectacular and not as prone to media coverage as other athletic fields." We do not find these 
assertions persuasive. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) 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. 1988). However, CIS 
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; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation are far more persuasive than letters from independent references who were not 
previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a solicitation to review the 
Page 8 
petitioner's cuniculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely on this review. 
Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than 
new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained 
national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that 
acclaim. 
We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some 
meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of athletics, the alien 
must show more than merely winning awards and prizes; a separate criterion covers those 
accomplishments. Neither identify specific contributions or explain 
how the petitioner's contributions have influenced the field. The record contains no evidence that 
the petitioner has reached a trend-setting goal to which others aspire, such as a world record. Nor 
does the record reflect that the petitioner is featured in trade journals for an influential running style. 
Without such evidence or comparable evidence of an influence on the field as a whole, we cannot 
conclude that the petitioner has made a contribution of major significance to the field of running. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director concluded that this criterion does not apply to the petitioner's field. On appeal, counsel 
asserts that the petitioner's "participation in competitions is similar to artistic exhibitions or showcases" 
and that the director should have considered the competitions as comparable evidence to meet this 
criterion. 
We acknowledge that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(4) permits the submission of comparable 
evidence where a criterion is not readily applicable. Clearly, this criterion is not readily applicable to 
the field of athletics. Every athlete making a living in his field, however, competes. We are not 
persuaded that typical athletic competitions are comparable to the type of exclusive exhibitions 
designed to showcase the work of an artist that could serve to meet this criterion in the field of visual 
arts. We do not preclude the possibility of some athletic events meeting this criterion, such as, on a 
case-by-case basis, an exhibition of national or international champion ice skaters billed as a showcase 
of the individual skaters' work. The petitioner, however, ran in competitive races. The races were not 
running exhibitions designed to showcase the talents of specific runners. The races were not promoted 
as a showcase of petitioner's talent and did not featuring him in the promotional materials. Thus, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated 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. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel referenced the letter from Mr. 
Gotski asserting that the petitioner "became a member and the front-runner of the Byelorussian 
National Team in the 100 km super marathon." 
Page 9 
The director concluded that no evidence was submitted to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel 
provides no new discussion of this criterion. 
As discussed above, implies that his information comes from the petitioner's own affidavit 
despite laim to have served as Chief Coach of the Byelorussian National Team in 
marathon and super marathon races. The official certificate from the Byelorussian Athletic Federation 
does not assert that the petitioner played a leading or critical role for the team. We have already 
considered the petitioner's accomplishments while on the team above. At issue for this criterion is the 
role the petitioner was selected to play and the reputation of the entity that selected him for the role. 
The record contains no evidence that the petitioner was selected as team captain or served in a similar 
official role for the team. Moreover, the record lacks evidence regarding the reputation of the national 
team. In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
runner to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a runner, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the classification sought is an employment-based classification. 
The statute requires that the petitioner be seeking to enter the United States to continue to "work" in the 
area of extraordinary ability. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires evidence of an intent to 
continue working in the petitioner's area of expertise, such as letters from prospective employers, 
prearranged commitments or a statement from the petitioner detailing his plans to work in his field. 
The record does not contain such evidence. While we acknowledge that marathon runners can earn a 
living in the field through prize money and endorsements, the petitioner submits no evidence that he 
has ever earned any prize money or that any company has expressed an interest in endorsing the 
petitioner's athletic career. Thus, the petitioner has not established his ability to make a living by 
competing as an athlete. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence,ssert that 
the petitioner will also coach and train runners. The regulation 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h) requires the . . 
beneficiary to "continue work in the area of expertise." while a runner and a coach certainly share 
knowledge of running, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics 
and coaching are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in Federal 
Court. See Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002). The record lacks evidence of the 
petitioner's coaching ability. As such, the petitioner has not established that coaching is within his 
area of expertise. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), aff'd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). For the above stated reasons, 
considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, 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. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.