dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

US. Department of fiomeland Security 
U.S. Cltlzenshlp and Imni~gratlon Serwces 
4 
 Office of Admlnlstratwe Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
V~IJ-J rr Co Py 
FILE: LIN 06 164 51716 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: ApR 2 4 2009 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This 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. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a 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. 4 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 06 164 51716 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed with a finding of fraud and material misrepresentation. 
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. 5 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 February 23, 2009, this office advised the petitioner of derogatory information and our intent to 
dismiss the appeal and enter a formal finding of fraud. This ofice afforded 15 days in which to 
respond. As of this date, more than six weeks later, this office has received nothing fiu-ther. Thus, for 
the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not demonstrated the necessary sustained national or 
international acclaim, has not provided any evidence of his hture employment plans and has willfully 
misrepresented material facts warranting a formal finding of fraud. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
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. 
LIN 06 164 51716 
Page 3 
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. 60897,60898-9 (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. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(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. 
The petitioner did not complete part 6 of the petition regarding the proposed employment. In response 
to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner indicated that he wished to teach karate. 
While not addressed by the director, the petitioner's bare assertion that he intends to teach karate does 
not satis@ the evidentiary requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(5). Specifically, that 
regulation provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her 
work in the United States. 
The petitioner's statement included no detailed plans and he did not submit letters from prospective 
employers or prearranged commitments. 
As noted by the director in his request for additional evidence, if the petitioner intends to coach, he 
must demonstrate extraordinary ability as a coach. Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h) 
requires the beneficiary to "continue work in the area of expertise." While a karate competitor and a 
coach certainly share knowledge of karate, 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 914,918 (N.D. Ill. 2002). 
While this office has recognized that there exists a nexus between playing and coaching a given 
sport, to assume that every extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching would be too 
speculative. As such, in a case where an alien has clearly achieved national or international acclaim 
as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at a national level, we can 
consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and 
extraordinary ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the petitioner's area of 
LIN 06 164 51716 
Page 4 
expertise. In this matter the petitioner has not established that he has any experience as a karate 
coach and, for the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established the necessary acclaim 
as an athlete. 
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 qualifjr 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted what purport to be certificates of rank, status as a referee, membership 
and awards. The petitioner also submitted what purports to be an article in an unidentified foreign 
language newspaper. Finally, the petitioner submitted photographs from what appear to be sparsely 
attended competitions. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner 
submitted the alleged requirements to be appointed as a referee. On appeal, the petitioner submits 
similar evidence and the programs for the 10~ World Cup and the 25' Anniversary Celebration 
sponsored by the International Martial Arts Federation (IMAF). 
On February 23,2009, the AAO advised the petitioner of the following discrepancies. Specifically, the 
programs submitted on appeal are full of typographical errors, including on copies of letters that 
purportedly originated from the White House. More significantly, the petitioner's name appears on 
page 129 of the loth World Cup program as one of the recipients of the "Top of the Wold [sic] 
Award" in martial arts. The petitioner is identified as the president of Japan Oriental Therapy, Inc. 
The petitioner is also listed as a Chief Instructor on page 4 of the 25th ~nniversary program. In both 
instances, however, the petitioner's name is pasted over the name originally printed in the program. 
In both cases, although the preprinted characters appear to resemble the Japanese characters for the 
petitioner's name, the underlying English name originally printed in the program appears to start 
with an "R," which is not the first letter of the petitioner's name. The record contains no evidence 
that the petitioner is the President of Japan Oriental Therapy. In fact, although a Los Angeles phone 
number is provided in the program, a search of the California Secretary of State's Business Portal 
website, http://ke~ler.sos.ca.nov/list.htinl (accessed February 20, 2009 and incorporated into the 
record of proceeding) provides no results for "Japan Oriental Therapy." 
In light of the above alterations, the AAO reviewed the documents submitted originally. As stated in 
the February 23, 2009 notice, the Certificate of Rank for the title of Master Instructor, appears to have 
been altered to add the petitioner's name. Specifically, the bottom of "hereby grants to" is cut off as 
well as the underlying orange image of the document. Thus, it appears that the petitioner's name was 
added to the document before the document was photocopied. Similarly, the Italian language certificate 
from the loth Wushu World Cup in Milan shows the edges of a piece of paper that was used to cover 
the original honoree's name prior to photocopying, partly covering the line for the honoree's name. In 
fact, some evidence of the original name can be seen below the pasted paper. The petitioner's name 
was subsequently added over this paper. 
LIN 06 164 51716 
Page 5 
The altered documents discussed above raise serious concerns regarding the credibility of the 
documentation discussed and the remaining evidence. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve 
any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in 
fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Thus, the AAO 
advised that the petitioner could not overcome the above findings simply by offering a written 
explanation. Moreover, the AAO advised that it would obviously not accept any photocopied 
documentation or letters as evidence to overcome the above derogatory information. The AAO 
noted that pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(5), USCIS has the discretion to request 
the originals of any photocopies submitted. Finally, 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. Thus, given the obvious alternations 
discussed above, the remaining evidence has no evidentiary value.' Nevertheless, we will consider 
the evidence as it relates to the regulatory criteria. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence relating to the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted two certificates purporting to document his first place finish at the December 
2005 loth World Cup in Milan, Italy sponsored by the IMAF, a Los Angeles entity. As stated above, on 
of these certificates has been clearly altered by pasting over name of the original awardee and adding 
the petitioner's name prior to photocopying. Thus, this document has no evidentiary value and raises 
serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the second certificate. The two certificates are also very 
different for certificates purportedly issued by the same entity at the same event. The petitioner also 
1 
 While not mentioned in our previous notice, much of the evidence comes from the IMAF, based in Los 
Angeles. We note that, according to the California Business Portal, http://ke~ler.sos.ca.~ov (accessed on 
April 10, 2009 and incorporated into the record of proceeding), the corporate status of this corporation is 
suspended. In addition, many of the materials suggest that the IMAF is affiliated with the International Kung 
Fu Federation. The federation's name appears along with IMAF on several documents and the golden seal 
for the IMAF includes the abbreviation "IKFF." According to their website, www.internationalkunnfu.com 
(accessed on April 10, 2009 and incorporated into the record of proceeding), the abbreviation for the the 
International Kung Fu Federation is "IKF," not "IKFF." IKF is the international governing body of the 
national and international Kung Fu and Tai Chi organizations in the world. Moreover, their website suggests 
no affiliation with IMAF. IKF is not based in the United States and its U.S. affiliate is the American Kung 
Fu Association located in Alabama. Moreover, the logo for the IKF includes a map while the lKFF seal on 
the materials submitted includes a shield (either with or without athletes) or a globe with a ring. (A search 
for "IKFF" on www.noonle.com (accessed April 10, 2009 with the results incorporated into the record of 
proceeding) reveals that this abbreviation is for the International Kettlebell and Fitness Federation.) 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
LIN 06 164 51716 
Page 6 
submitted what purports to be an article about the Los Angeles team's success in Milan. The petitioner 
did not identi@ the publication in which this article purportedly appeared. 
The petitioner also submitted another Certificate of Merit confirming his "Gold Medal" at the 8'" World 
Cup sponsored by the IMAF in Japan in 2001. Finally, the petitioner submitted a "Golden Award" 
from the IMAF on October 5, 2001 confirming that the petitioner had "passed the evaluation 
administered by the committee of the Eight [sic] World Cup International Martial Arts Championship 
Conference." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated the significance of the above awards. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits the aforementioned program for the 2005 10~ IMAF World Cup in 
Milan, Italy. While the program includes several letters from high level politicians, it is clear that the 
letters were issued in appreciation of donations or in response to a written request. These letters do not 
establish the significance of the competition. Regardless, as stated above, the petitioner's name is 
pasted onto a list of the "Top of the Wold [sic] Award for Outstanding Martial Artist." This altered 
document has no evidentiary value. 
The petitioner also submits a September 4, 2006 "Gold Medal Award from the IMAF certifying that 
the petitioner "passed the examination of the 25" Anniversary Special Demonstration Championship 
Evaluation Committee." This certificate postdates the filing of the petition. The petitioner must 
establish his eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. §tj 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comrn'r. 1971). Thus, we will not consider this certificate or the petitioner's 
assertions that he will win more medals at an upcoming event. 
Finally, the petitioner submits an uncertified translation of the abovementioned newspaper article. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3), translations must be certified. The translation 
reflects that the article mentions the petitioner's alleged success in Milan, Italy along with other 
competitors from Los Angeles. The record still does not identify the publication in which this article 
allegedly appeared. Thus, the petitioner has not established that this competition garners any attention 
in the major media. Regardless, the director explicitly requested a certified English translation in the 
request for additional evidence and the petitioner did not submit any translation in response. The 
petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for 
the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner failed to submit the requested 
evidence and now submits it on appeal. However, the AAO will not consider this evidence for any 
purpose. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533,537 (BIA 1988). 
We concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that the competitions where he 
allegedly won awards are nationally or internationally recognized. Moreover, for the reasons discussed 
above, much of the evidence submitted to meet this criterion has been altered, casting doubt on the 
LIN 06 164 51716 
Page 7 
remaining evidence. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted credible evidence establishing that he meets 
this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classijication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 
The petitioner submits certificates of his rank, "Dan" level and membership in the International Kung- 
Fu Federation. As stated above, the certificate of rank purporting to confirm the petitioner's rank as a 
"Master, 4' Dan" is altered. Specifically, the original grantee's name has been pasted over and the 
petitioner's name added. The "Certificate of 4 Dan" awarded by the Japan Sohryukan Kempodo Union 
reflects that the petitioner's name has been written over another name which may or may not have been 
his name originally. The record also contains a certificate for 5' Degree Black Belt status in weapons 
from the IMAF. Finally, the membership certificate from the International Kung Fu Federation is 
printed on Goes stationary, which is commonly sold at business supply  store^.^ 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted the IMAF's 
regulations for application of belt levels. The materials reflect that belt progression is based on an 
examination and demonstration of skill. The petitioner did not submit the membership requirements 
for the International Kung Fu Federation. 
The director concluded that the record lacked evidence that the petitioner was a member of any 
organization that requires outstanding achievements. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that black belt is 
the highest level the petitioner can obtain at his age and that fifth degree is already the level of "Sifu." 
The petitioner further asserts that he will soon reach the sixth degree and pass the Grand Master and 
Grand Judge exam. As stated above, however, the petitioner must establish his eligibility as of the date 
of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5s 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner also submitted the application for Membership in the "International Martial Arts / Kung 
Fu Federation" in Los Angeles, California. The application suggests that membership is based on fee 
payments alone. Fee payments are not outstanding achievements. Moreover, routine progression in 
Dan levels through examination is not an outstanding achievement. 
 Thus, even if the evidence 
submitted were credible, it would not establish that the petitioner 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 classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted what purports to be a single article that is about the success of several athletes 
from Los Angeles in Milan, Italy. The article is not primarily about the petitioner. The petitioner did 
3 
 As stated in footnote 1, supra, the International Kung Fu Federation actually goes by the abbreviation 
"IKF." Thus, this membership certificate, which includes the IMAFIIKFF seal, is suspect. 
LIN 06 164 51716 
Page 8 
not submit the required translation until appeal despite being expressly requested to do so. As stated 
above, we will not consider the translation on appeal pursuant to Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 
766; Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 537. Finally, without the name of the publication and 
evidence as to its circulation, we cannot determine whether the article appeared in major media. 
Thus, even if the evidence was credible, it would not establish that the petitioner 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 alliedjeld of speczjication for which classiJication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted an "Official International Referee Certificate" issued by the World Karate 
Federation. While the certificate is a photocopy, including the signatures of the officials, the petitioner's 
name is in original ink which bled through the paper. The certificate is also undated and the grade, if it 
was ever added, has been blotted out. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the 
petitioner submitted the requirements for referees and judges from the World Karate Federation. 
Candidates must be a certain age and have reached the third Dan level. Referees must progress through 
five levels. 
Even if the petitioner was certified as a referee, the record lacks evidence that he actually judged any 
competitions. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(3)(D) requires evidence of actual judging 
experience. Regardless, for the reasons stated above, the certificate lacks any credibility. Thus, 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 
karate athlete or coach 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. 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 upholding the director's decision, we are also making a formal finding of fraud. As stated 
above, 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. See Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. In this case, we find substantial and probative evidence that the 
petitioner submitted falsified material in support of the petition. The petitioner signed the Form 
1-140 under penalty of perjury and attested that he is solely responsible for submission of evidence 
with this petition. 
LIN 06 164 51716 
Page 9 
Section 2 12(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fiaud or willfully 
misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has 
procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other 
benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible. 
Under Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent, a material misrepresentation is one which 
"tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility and which might well have 
resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded." Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436, 447 
(BIA 1961). 
Finally, by filing the instant petition and submitting evidence purporting to document awards and 
referee and instructor certification, the petitioner has sought to procure a benefit provided under the 
Act using fraudulent documents. Because the petitioner has failed to provide independent and 
objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, our finding that the above documents are all 
fraudulent, we affirm our finding of fraud. This finding of fraud shall be considered in any future 
proceeding where admissibility is an issue. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed based with a finding of fraud and willful misrepresentation of 
a material fact on the part of the petitioner,- 
FURTHER ORDER: 
 The AAO finds that the petitioner,, knowingly submitted 
documents containing false statements in an effort to mislead USCIS 
and the AAO on an element material to the petitioner's eligibility for a 
benefit sought under the immigration laws of the United States.