dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF E-S- DATE: MAY 19, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a cycling coach, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not submit the necessary documentation to meet at least three initial evidence criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits additional exhibits and a 
brief. He indicates that he has satisfied at least three initial evidence criteria and shown that he has 
extraordinary ability as a cycling coach. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states in pertinent part: 
( 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 
Matter ofE-S-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
The term ·'extraordinary ability'' refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit 
this evidence. then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying docwnentation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria. however. does not, in and of itself. establish eligibility tor this 
classification. See Kazarian v. US'CIS. 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria. considered 
in the context of a final merits determination). See also R(jal v. USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.O. 
Wash. 2011). aff"d, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012): Visinscaia v. Beers. 4 F.Supp.3d 126. 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013) (finding that we appropriately applied the two-step review): Matter (~l Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the .. truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality"' and that we examine .. each piece of evidence tor relevance. 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true'} 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found the Petitioner did not submit the necessary initial evidence because he did not 
provide documentation satisfying any of the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). Upon 
de novo review, we find that the record satisfies at least three of these criteria. In our final merits 
detennination, however, we conclude that the Petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability by 
showing he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner has ofTered numerous foreign language documents with 
accompanying translations. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) provides: .. Translations. Any 
document containing a 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 to reign language into 
English." With both his initial filing and his response to the Director's request tor evidence. the 
Petitioner supplied a single certification stating that .. this translation has been done by me and is 
true, accurate and correct with the document presented to me.'' In neither case does the certification. 
which is worded in the singular. name the Petitioner, identify the items reviewed, or otherwise 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-S-
indicate that the signatory performed all translations in the submission. Given all of these factors. 
we find that the certifications in the record are not probative evidence that the certifier performed all 
of the translations in the record as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Nevertheless. even if the 
Petitioner had provided the necessary translation certifications for the petition's foreign language 
exhibits, we would conclude that he did not demonstrate eligibility for the benefit sought, as 
analyzed and discussed below. 
Published material about the individual in pN~lessional or major trade publications or other 
major media. The materials must relate to the individual's tvork in the field fin· which 
class[jication is sought. Such evidence shall include the title. date. and author <~lthe material, 
and any necessary translation. 
The Director found the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion, noting that, although he supplied 
copies of online articles that included postings in the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the articles were (1) about him, and (2) published in major media. On appeaL the 
Petitioner states that the articles provided are "'about" him, as they discuss either his opinions about 
cycling or his role as a cycling coach. In addition, he argues that the evidence shows 
should be considered major media. 
Upon review of the information provided, we agree that the article from 
entitled "[Petitioner] Received the First Coaching Diploma from 
in Cycling'' satisfies this criterion. The article discusses the Petitioner's attendance at a 
cycling coach training program held by the An article about the steps the Petitioner has taken 
to develop skills as a cycling coach is about him and related to his work in the field. In addition, the 
record contains evidence showing that the is the semi-official news agency of 
Iran, supporting its classification as major media. For these reasons, if we accepted the translations, 
the Petitioner would have satisfied the plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's participation. either individually or on a panel. as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedfield of.\pectficationfiJr which class(fication is sought. 
Although not specifically raised under this criterion, the Petitioner provided a letter from 
President of the dated August 
13, 2013, discussing the Petitioner's appointment as Talent Identification Coach for the organization. 
While this letter is unsigned, the Petitioner also submitted an online notice posted by the 
regarding a cycling camp organized to identify talent. The 
posting names the Petitioner as one of the coaches at the event. This documentation shows that in 
this position, the Petitioner identified and judged the talent of young cyclists. As a result this 
evidence satisfies the plain language of the criterion. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-S-
Evidence (~lthe individual's authorship ~/scholarly articles in the field in pn~{essional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that he authored a paper entitled "The survey of psychological 
characteristics of elite cyclists of Iran" published in the foreign-language journal, 
The Director found the article did not satisfy this criterion. Upon review, however, we note that the 
paper reports the findings of a scientific study. contains an explanation of the research methodology 
used, and cites other scholarly articles. Two of the co-authors are professors at the 
and the The Petitioner also 
submitted a sheet with a summary of the paper under the header: 
suggesting 
the paper was presented at the conference. All of these factors support consideration of the piece as 
a scholarly article. In addition, the journal in which the article appears. publishes a 
variety of scholarly articles on topics related to its overarching theme, supporting its classification as 
a professional publication. For these reasons, the article identified above meets the plain language of 
the criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Assuming the Petitioner's translations complied with 8 C.F.R § 
1 03.2(b)(3), the Petitioner would 
have submitted the requisite initial evidence. Accordingly, we now conduct a final merits 
determination that considers the entire record in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated extraordinary ability as a cycling coach by showing he has a level of expertise 
indicating he is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act: 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3 ): see also Kazarian. 596 F .3d at 1119-20. 
The Petitioner submitted a number of documents regarding his involvement with the Iranian youth 
national cycling team. The probative value of this material is somewhat limited. however. due to 
anomalies in appearance and discrepancies in content. In his initial tiling, the Petitioner gave four 
letters from the For three of these. the Petitioner provided a letter in English followed by a 
letter in Farsi. A comparison of three of the Farsi letters that follow the English letters indicates, 
however, that the Farsi versions are copies of the same letter. albeit with different alignment and 
replication sizes. The English, however, varies. Accordingly, while two of the English versions are 
signed. these variable letters from different individuals arc not translations of the copies of the same 
Farsi letter that appear behind each English version. 
In the event the Petitioner intended the English letters to be considered photocopies of originals. 
anomalies in the documentation reduce their probative weight. Three of the English letters are on 
letterhead. Each of these letters is a copy that contains the same letterhead shrunken to a 
different percentage ofthe petition's 8.5 x 11" sized paper. The first copy shows letterhead that is 
nearly the full size of the 8.5 x 11" sheet of paper. The other two letters have letterhead shrunken by 
different amounts. Despite the varying relative sizes of the letterhead, the size of the text font and 
stamp remain identical across all three letters. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-S-
In addition to these anomalies, the letters' content raises questions. A letter dated March 11, 20 12, 
from President of states that the Petitioner acted as the national coach of the 
Iranian junior cycling team from July 23, 2010, to March 19, 2012. The second ofthese dates had 
not yet occurred on the date the letter was written. Neither the letter nor other evidence submitted 
explains why the letter refers to a future date in the past tense. More significantly, the Petitioner also 
provided another letter on letterhead dated June 23, 2012, from the 
organization's Secretary General, indicating that the Petitioner served as the junior national team 
coach from January 2009 to January 2012. The record does not contain information to resolve the 
discrepancy between these two letters in terms of the dates the Petitioner acted as coach. 
The Petitioner listed two competitions in which junior national team cyclists competed during his 
tenure as coach: the 20 11 and the 2011 
In Thailand, athletes on the Petitioner's team won a in the individual time trial. 
in the 3k. and in the team pursuit. In they won 
and Although these finishes reflect success, the Petitioner 
does not name any other events during which he served as a coach. The Petitioner has not met his 
burden of showing that his limited coaching experience of two distinguished but junior level 
competitions is indicative of his status at the very top of his field. 
The Petitioner also provided several printouts from material posted on website confirming 
that he served in different refereeing capacities for four difTerent cycling races in 2013 and 2014. 
Additional posts that name the Petitioner as a referee or commissar appear on the 
website as well as on other unidentified websites. This documentation supports the 
Petitioner's statement that he has refereed competitions; however, he does not submit evidence 
showing that this activity is indicative of extraordinary ability as a cycling coach. Specifically. as 
the record does not corroborate the duties of the position, the Petitioner has not established whether 
his activities involved judging the cycling ability of other cyclists or just enforcement of the rules. 
The Petitioner does not 
suggest that selection as a referee or commissar is reserved for those few 
who are the top of their field rather than those familiar with the rules. Similarly, he did not give 
information showing the competitions he refereed were prestigious or noteworthy. 
With respect to the Petitioner's services as a talent coach, the letter discussing these duties is 
unsigned. In addition, the record contains no evidence of the significance of coverage by 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he received recognition tor these services at a 
level consistent with national or international acclaim or that his selection is indicative of such 
acclaim. 
The Petitioner maintains that he is the first Iranian cycling coach to complete the 
of the He provided a portion of the information pack 
which indicates that the program is separated into three levels: the Level 1 Coaching Certificate, the 
Level 2 Coaching Certificate, and the Diploma. Level 1 focuses on the foundations 
of coaching, Level 2 focuses on developing riders beyond the basics. and the Diploma is the highest 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter 4 E-S-
recognition of coaching training. As evidence of his completion of this course, the Petitioner 
submitted certificates from for Level 1, Level 2, and the Diploma completed at the 
in Switzerland from May 3, 2010, to June 25. 2010. A second certificate for 
his completion of Level 1 training ret1ects, however, that he took that course in Iran, 
between July 27, 201 Land August 5, 2011. The record does not otherwise show that the Petitioner 
took the Level 1 course twice, nor does it explain the inconsistent dates and location. The Petitioner 
has not resolved the discrepancy with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. See J\1alter (~lHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). 
Regardless of incongruities, the Petitioner has not shown that completion of the trammg is 
indicative of extraordinary ability as a cycling coach. The portion of the information pack in 
the record ret1ects that, in order to enroll in one of the courses, applicants must be at least 18 years of 
age and complete a course application form and coach profile. The documents provided do not list 
any other requirements. In addition, the materials do not suggest that completion of the course and 
receipt of the final diploma is an achievement only attainable by those few at the very top of the 
field. As a result, though completion of the course establishes coaching training and knowledge, it 
does not demonstrate the Petitioner's extraordinary ability. 
The Petitioner provided copies of online articles about his work in the field of cycling. In addition to 
the article discussed above, the Petitioner ofTered an article posted on January 5, 2011, to 
webpage reports that junior cyclists are training to take part in the 
and names the Petitioner as the team coach. The record also contains a print­
out from 
the dated November 26, 201 L which reports on 
his opinion regarding the need for a standard cycling track in Iran. An at1icle posted on December 
22, 2011, on the quotes the Petitioner regarding the junior national 
team's training and preparedness for the upcoming An article dated July 31, 
2013, from the states the Petitioner translated the four volume publication 
into Farsi. Finally, the Petitioner supplied a post from dated 
September 3, 2013, regarding the formation of a committee to identify young cycling talent. The 
piece names the Petitioner as one of the talent coaches. Each of these printouts is less than one page. 
They discuss the events and circumstances stated elsewhere. The Petitioner has not given evidence 
to suggest that these articles are indicative of the acclaim necessary for this classification. Rather. 
they seem to be reporting on events in the cycling world and mention the Petitioner in that context, 
without focusing on his achievements. The record also lacks evidence regarding the significance of 
any of the media outlets other than The limited coverage is not indicative ofthe Petitioner's 
status among the small percentage who have risen to the top of the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner otTered letters of reference from several individuals familiar with his work in different 
capacities. 1 Two of the letters are from professors at the the Petitioner's 
alma mater. Although the professors may know the Petitioner in relation to his academic studies, the 
1 We have thoroughly reviewed and considered each letter submitted, but discuss only a sampling of the letters in this 
decision. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter 4 E-S-
letters do not indicate they have a knowledge of cycling with which to make an infonned opinion 
regarding the Petitioner's abilities as a coach. Both professors are of the opinion that the Petitioner 
has risen to the top of his field; however, they do not supply the rationale for their conclusion. 
While it is acknowledged that the authors have provided their support for this petition, it is unclear 
whether the letters ret1ect their independent observations and thus an informed and unbiased opinion 
of the Petitioner's work. In evaluating the record, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. See Chawathe, 25 I&N at 376. 
The Petitioner also submitted a reference letter from coach of the 
and former coach of the indicates that he met the Petitioner at 
the training and states that, after completing the course, the Petitioner became ·'one of the key 
figures in [the] .. He also concludes that the Petitioner is ''one of [the] top 
coaches in cycling in Iran and/or broader geographic area ... Though we acknowledge this opinion. 
does not provide context to support his conclusions. The opinions of the Petitioner's 
references are not without weight; however. we are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. See Matler of Caron In! ·1. 
19 I&N Dec. 791,795 (Comm'r 1988). Thus. the content of references· statements and how they 
became aware of the Petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Specifically, USCIS need 
not accept primarily conclusory affirmations. 1756. Inc. v. Att 'y Gen. l~{the United S'tates, 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). In this case. does not explain the bases for his evaluation of the 
Petitioner. Without more, the words of are not persuasive proof of the Petitioner's abilities. 
The Petitioner indicated that he "has created a training method that is new to the coaching of cyclists 
in Iran. This new method is one wherein the heart rate is monitored based on heart rate and time in 
the athlete instead of the distance.'' The Petitioner submitted two letters from club cycling coaches 
in Iran, each of whom credits the Petitioner with developing a heart-rate based training regimen. 
Though we do not doubt that the Petitioner has expanded the knowledge of coaches in Iran by 
informing them of updated training methods. the record does not contain objective. independent 
evidence to support the claim that he is responsible for the creation ofthe heart-rate based approach 
to training. In addition, the two letters that discuss this training method contain paragraphs of 
identical language. raising questions about the independence of their observations. Regarding the 
Petitioner's creation of a new training method, he cannot meet the burden of proof without credible 
supporting documentation. Mafler l~lSl?f/ici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Maller 
o{ Treasure Crafi l~l Cal[fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'! Comm'r 1972)); see also Chawathe. 
25 I&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 201 0). The record does not contain an article or manual the Petitioner 
authored on this subject or similar corroboration of his development of this methodology. While the 
Petitioner did author an article on the psychological characteristics of Iranian cyclists, the Petitioner 
has not substantiated the impact of this article through, for example, citations or other corroboration 
of an impact in the field upon dissemination. 
Lastly, the Petitioner provided a letter from 
Management Board and the 
member of the 
Management Board. 
also became aware of the Petitioner through his training at He noted that the 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-S-
Petitioner was the first individual from Iran to attend the training. He also mentioned the 
Petitioner's work translating a book on cycling basics into Farsi, his work as a referee of cycling 
competitions, and his participation with an activity entitled .. successful young people in sport." 
Work by the Petitioner on a documentary is not mentioned elsewhere in the record and is not 
corroborated by independent evidence. While the other activities are corroborated, 
does not explain why they lead to his conclusion that the Petitioner has risen to the top of his tield. 
For example. the Petitioner's work translating a text on cycling demonstrates his ability in two 
languages, including cycling terms, but is less probative ofthe Petitioner's extraordinary ability as a 
cycling coach than authorship of original material on the subject. Similarly, the Petitioner's work as 
a referee requires an understanding of the rules of the sport. but does not, however, indicate the 
Petitioner has reached the top of his field of endeavor. 
Documentation from confirms that the Petitioner was invited to participate in a three-
day clinic held in California. The record does not suggest. however. that invitations for 
clinic attendance were restricted to those at the very top of the field. As a result, this invitation does 
not illustrate that the Petitioner has extraordinary ability as a coach. Similarly, a letter from the 
coach of a invites the Petitioner to assist him in coaching the team for June-July 
of 2014. Another letter from the invites 
the Petitioner to assist in training its cyclist from March 2013 to 2014. However, the letters provide 
no information surrounding the circumstances of the invitations and the Petitioner does not indicate 
that he accepted them. Lastly, website postings reflect that on three occasions the Petitioner served 
as an instructor during a four-day third level mountain bike coaching course. All of these exhibits 
show the Petitioner is a competent coach. This visa classification is limited. however, to individuals 
who are part of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the tield of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). These materials do not support the Petitioner's claim that he has reached this 
level of ability. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides the following argument: 
In order to review the facts of this case, the officer must take into consideration the 
country of origin of the applicant. The country of which we speak is Iran, it may be a 
country wherein the people are enlightened and have a great desire to be 
"westernized.'' However. it is a country wherein the Islamic Republic rules. and 
everything including sports is under the controls of the Islamic Republic. Thus it 
would be unfair to compare the state of the cycling federation of Iran to that of the 
US, or any other country. 
While the Petitioner need only demonstrate national acclaim and we understand the logic urged here 
by the Petitioner, this tirst preference extraordinary ability classification is reserved tor the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. For the reasons stated above. the Petitioner 
has not made the requisite showing. 
8 
Matter of E-S-
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner satisfied the requisite initial evidence required by regulation, the totality of 
the record does not confirm the Petitioner's extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the 
Act. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, \Vith each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings. it is the Petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter t~lOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127. 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter l~{E-S-, ID# 14833 (AAO May 19, 2016) 
9