dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
. U.S.Citizenshipand[mmigrationServices
identifying data deleted to AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AA0)
preventclearlyunwarranted 2wou e Av us2090
invasionof personalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
PUBLIC COPY andImmigration
Services
DATE: AUG0 7 2012 Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneñeiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workeras an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)oftheImmigrationandNationalityAct,8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefindthedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginallydecidedyour case. Pleasebeadvised
thatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Notice of Appealor Motion,with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationfor thebeneficiaryasan"alienof extraordinaryability"in athletics,
pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C.
§ l l53(b)(1)(A). Thedirectordeterminedthepetitionerhadnotestablishedthesustainednationalor
internationalacclaim of the beneficiarynecessaryto qualify for classificationas an alien of
extraordinaryability.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of thealien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and
8C.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). Thepetitioner
mustsubmitqualifyingevidenceonbehalfof thebeneficiaryunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatory
categoriesof evidenceto establishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
On appeal,counselsubmitsa brief andadditionalevidence.For the reasonsdiscussedbelow,upon
reviewof theentirerecord,includingtheevidencesubmittedonappeal,theAAO upholdsthedirector's
conclusionthatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilityfor theexclusiveclassificationsought.
L LAW
Section203(b)oftheActstates,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho are
aliensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.- An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) the alien has extraordinaryability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedby sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the
fieldthroughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continueworkin theareaof
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhighstandardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723 101"Cong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.Id;
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(thatis,amajor,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewedthe denialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification.Kazarianv.USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Althoughthe
courtupheldtheAAO's decisionto denythepetition,thecourttook issuewith theAAO's evaluation
of evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion) Withrespectto thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi),thecourtconcludedthatwhileUSCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwocriteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"finalmeritsdetermination."Id.at 1121-22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureisto countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAOdid),"andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatory requirementof three types of evidence(as the AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsfortha two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof afinalmeritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAO will reviewtheevidenceunder
theplain languagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdid not submitqualifying
evidenceunderatleastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionisthatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id
Specifically,the courtstatedthatthe AAO hadunilaterallyimposednovelsubstantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyondthoseset forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
II. ANALYSIS
A. Evidenceof aone-timeachievement
The implementingregulationat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)statesthat an alien can establishsustained
nationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,specificallya major,
internationallyrecognizedaward.Given Congress'intent to restrict this categoryto "that small
percentageof individualswho haverisento the very top of their field of endeavor,"the regulation
permittingeligibility basedon a one-timeachievementmustbeinterpretedverynarrowly,with only
a smallhandfulof awardsqualifyingasmajor,internationallyrecognizedawards.SeeH.R.Rep.
101-723,59(Sept.19,1990),reprintedin 1990U.S.C.C.A.N.6710,1990WL 200418at *6739.
Theregulationis consistentwith thislegislativehistory,statingthataone-timeachievementmustbe
amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).TheselectionofNobelLaureates,
the exampleprovidedby Congress,is reportedin the top mediainternationallyregardlessof the
nationalityof the awardees,is a familiarnameto thepublicat large,andincludesa largecashprize.
While an internationallyrecognizedawardcould conceivablyconstitutea one-timeachievement
withoutmeetingall of thoseelements,it isclearfromtheexampleprovidedbyCongressthattheaward
mustbeinternationallyrecognizedin thealien'sfieldasoneof thetopawardsin thatfield.
Forthefirsttimeonappealcounselassertsthatthe etitionersatisfiesthisre uirementbasedu onhis
"rece' t of first place
Therecordcontainsa copyof a fill-in-the-blankachievementcertificatesignedby the
Chairmanof theInternationalWushuFederation(IWUF),a letterwitha certifiedtranslationfromthe
IWUF, ChineseWushuAssociationandHenanBureauof Sports,an almostidenticalletterfrom the
GeneralBureauof Sportsof China,andvariousinternetprintouts. Counselfurtherassertsthat the
petitioneralsosatisfiesthisrequirementbaseduponhisreceiptof "first placeattheJianshoeventin the
first Afro-AsianWushuKung-FuChampionshipsin 2002in Egypt." Thepetitionersubmitteda copy
of a fill-in-the-blank certificate and a copy of two photographsfrom an unknown sourcewith an
uncertifiedtranslation,whichisof noprobativevalue.
Regardingtheletters,neitherletteris signedandthereforeareof no evidentiaryvalue. With regardto
the internetprintouts,the informationprovidedhighlightsthatthe First WorldTraditionalWushu
Festivalwas alsoa festivalwith "over 4,000martialartists[] perform[ing]traditionalWushu."
Furthermore,accordingto thedocumentationsubmittedbythepetitionerto demonstratetheselection
criteriafor theUnitedStatesof AmericaWushuKungFu Federation,"[u]nlike theofficial World
WushuChampionships,IWUFmemberorganizationmembersareallowedtosendmorethanoneteam
to participate,"andthat"teamtrialsareopento everycitizenandpermanentresidentof theUnited
States."Thepetitioneralsosubmittedaninternetprintoutfromhttp:Nplumblossom.net,a U.S.team
whichparticipatedin thefestival.As thepetitioneris notaU.S.citizenor permanentresident,these
documentsarenotrelevantto histeam. WhilethePlumBlossomteamexpressesexcitementabout
Page5
attendingtheevent,theselectiondocumentconfirmsthatthefestivalwasnotof thesamecaliberasthe
official WorldWushuChampionships.
Therecorddoesnot includesupportingevidencedemonstratingthesignificanceandmagnitudeof
the specificcompetitivecategorieswon by the petitioner. For instance,the petitionerfailed to
submitevidenceof thecriterionfor selectionto participateandofficial comprehensiveresultsfrom
the precedingcompetitionsindicatingthe total numberof entrantsin his competitivecategory. A
victory in aneventcategorywith a limited pool of entrantsor talentis not evidenceof international
recognition.Moreover,acompetitionmaybeopento athletesfrom variouscountries,butthis factor
aloneis not adequateto establishthatan awardfrom the eventqualifiesasa major,internationally
recognizedaward. Furthermore,the AAO will not presumethat a festival,or aneventheld for the
first time,asis thecasefor theprecedingawards,equatesto a major,internationalcompetition.The
burdenis on thepetitionerto demonstratethe levelof recognitionandachievementassociatedwith
hisawardcertificates.
Thedocumentationsubmittedby thepetitionerdoesnot establishthathis awardswererecognized
beyondthecontextof theeventswheretheywerepresentedandthereforecommensuratewith major,
internationallyrecognizedawardsin the martial arts. Accordingly,the petitioner has failed to
demonstrateevidenceof aqualifyingone-timeachievement.
B. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizes or
awardsfor excellencein thefield ofendeavor.
Althoughthedirectorfoundthat"theevidencesubmittedmeetsthiscriterion,"basedonareviewof the
entirerecord,theAAO mustwithdrawthefindingsof thedirectorfor thiscriterion.
As discussedabo therecordcontains rst placefinishes
and at
in the Jianshoevent are nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellence,eitheratthemajoror lesserlevel.
Therecordalsocontainsevidencethatthe etitionerwonfir
of thePeople's
Republicof Chinain 2003. Supportingevidencein the recorddemonstratesthatthis eventwas
comprisedof "14differentcompetitionsand124typesof performances"and"athletesof different
minoritygroupsfromover34delegations."
2Thepetitionerdoesnot claimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto theregulatorycategoriesof evidence
notdiscussedin thisdecision.
Page6
In theoriginalfiling, counselassertsthatthepetitionerwon
NationalGamesof thePeople'sRepublicof China. However,therecordonlycontainsa copyof two
certificateswith certifiedtranslationsfor a secondplacefinishfor theMale SwordCompetitionanda
third placefinish for the "otherMaleFist Competition(3 Types)"issuedfor theNationalSports
Competitionin 1997held in Taiyuan. The unsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constitute
evidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.
1 (BIA 1983);Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).Theoriginalfiling
containsa printoutfrom Wikipediaregardingthe 1lthNationalGamesof the People'sRepublicof
Chinawhichstatesthatthegameswereheldin ShandongfromOctober16- October28,2009andthat
"4 wintersports[] wereheldin Shenyang,ChangchunandQingdaobetweenJanuaryandApril 2009."
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidence,counselstatesthatthattheawardswon
for the 8* NationalGamesof thePeople'sRepublicOf China. It is incumbentuponthe petitionerto
resolveanyinconsistenciesin therecordby independentobjectiveevidence.Any attemptto explain
or reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not sufficeunlessthe petitionersubmitscompetentobjective
evidencepointingto wherethetruthlies.Matterof Ho, 19I&N Dec.582,591-92(BIA 1988).
Doubtcaston anyaspectof the petitioner'sproof may,of course,leadto a reevaluationof the
reliabilityandsufficiencyof theremainingevidenceofferedin supportof thevisapetition. Id. at
591. TheAAO alsonotesthatwith regardto informationfrom Wikipedia,thereareno assurances
aboutthe reliability of thecontentfrom this open,user-editedinternetsite? SeeLamilemBadasav.
MichaelMukasey,540F.3d909(8thCir.2008).
Giventhe inconsistenciesbetweenthe certificatespresentedandthe assertionsmadeby counsel,the
AAO cannotpresumethat the petitionerparticipatedin anyof the NationalGamesof the People's
Republicof Chinaor thathereceivedfirst placein anycompetition.It remainsthepetitioner'sburden
to submitevidenceaddressingeveryelementof a givencriterion,includingthat a prizeor awardis
nationallyorintemationallyrecognized.
OnlinecontentfromWikipediais subjecttothefollowinggeneraldisclaimer:
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEEOF VALIDITY. Wikipediais an onlineopen-content
collaborativeencyclopedia,that is, a voluntaryassociationof individualsandgroupsworking to
developa commonresourceof humanknowledge.Thestructureof theprojectallowsanyonewith
anInternetconnectionto alterits content.Pleasebeadvisedthatnothingfoundherehasnecessarily
beenreviewedby peoplewith the expertiserequiredto provideyou with complete,accurateor
reliableinformation.. . . Wikipediacannotguaranteethevalidityoftheinformationfoundhere.The
contentof anygivenarticlemayrecentlyhavebeenchanged,vandalizedor alteredby someone
whoseopiniondoesnotcorrespondwiththestateofknowledgeintherelevantfields.
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.ordwiki/Wikipedia:Generaldisclaimer,accessedon July 26,2012,a copyof which
is mcorporatedintotherecordof proceeding.
Page7
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetstheplainlanguagerequirements
of thisregulatorycriterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for whichclassificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers,asjudgedbyrecognizednational
or internationalexpertsin their disciplinesorfields.
Thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerdid not meetthis criterionunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Counseldoesnotcontestthisfindingonappeal.Uponreviewof theentirerecord,theAAOaffirmsthe
director'sfindings.
Publishedmaterialaboutthealien in professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor
media,relatingto the alien's work in thefield for whichclassificationis sought. Suchevidence
shallincludethetitle,date,andauthorofthematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
Althoughthedirectorfoundthat"theevidencesubmittedmeetsthiscriterion,"basedonareviewof the
entirerecord,theAAO mustwithdrawthefindingsof thedirectorfor thiscriterion.
In general,in order for publishedmaterialto meetthis criterion,it must be primarily aboutthe
petitionerand,asstatedin theregulation,it mustbeappearin professionalor majortradepublications
or othermajormedia.To qualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistribution.Somenewspapers,suchastheNewYorkTimes,nominallyserveaparticular
localitybutwouldqualifyasmajormediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlikesmalllocal
communitypapersf
The December2007articlein KungFu Tai Chi Magazineliststhepetitionerasoneof "38 Shaolin
Immigrantsto theSanFranciscoBayArea." Theplainlanguageof theregulationrequiresthearticle
to be"about"thepetitioner. TheAAO will notpresumethatanarticlewherethepetitioneris oneof
thirty-eight individuals profiled is aboutthe petitioner. SeegenerallyNegro-Plumpev. Okin, 2:07-
CV-820-ECR-RJJat 7 (D. Nev.Sept.8, 2008)(upholdinga fmdingthatarticlesabouta showarenot
aboutthe actor). The AAO alsonotesthat,unlike manyof the otherindividual'sbiographies,the
articledoesnot mentionthatthepetitionerhaswonanyawards,ratherthat"[h]e participatedin many
Shaolintours."
In responseto the director'srequestfor evidence,counselassertsthat the articlein the YanZhao
EveningNews"reachesasmanyas3,500,000Chinesereadersthroughoutthenation."Thepetitioner
submittedinformationfromthewebsiteaddresshttp://www.admaimai.comthatstatesthatthis daily
paperhasa circulationof 3,500,000perissueandthat "[i]t is thefirst mediumbrandchoicefor
domesticbusinessandforeigncountrybusinessto widentheirbusinessinfluencein northernChina."
4 Evenwith nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbegivento theplacementof thearticle.
Forexample,anarticlethatappearsintheWashingtonPost,butinasectionthatisdistributedonlyin Fairfax
County,Virginia,forinstance,cannotservetospreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideofthatcounty.
Page8
However,in the original filing, the petitionersubmittedinformationfrom the websiteaddress
http://baike.baidu.comthatstatesthepaper"is mainlypublishedin Shijiazhuang- thecapitalcity of
Hebei,"that"[i]t is alsodistributedin mainmiddle-sizecitiesin the province"andthatthe "highest
issue[]volumereached350,000.As previouslymentioned,it is incumbentuponthe petitionerto
resolveanyinconsistenciesin the recordby independentobjectiveevidence.Matter of Ho, 19I&N
Dec.at582.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetstheplain languagerequirements
of this regulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor on a panel,as ajudge of the work of
othersin thesameor analliedfield ofspecificationfor whichclassificationissought.
Thedirectorfoundthatthe petitionersatisfiedtheplain languagerequirementsof theregulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)andtheAAOaffirmsthatfinding.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific,scholarly,artistic, athletic. or business-related
contributionsof majorsigrüficancein thefield.
Thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerdid notmeetthiscriterionunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v).
CounseldoesnotcontestthisfindingonappealUponreviewof theentirerecord,theAAOaffirmsthe
director'sfindings.
Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefìeld, inprofessionalor majortrade
publicationsor othermajormedia.
Althoughthedirectorfoundthat"theevidencesubmittedmeetsthiscriterion,"basedonareviewof the
entirerecord,theAAO mustwithdrawthefindingsof thedirectorfor thiscriterion.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requires"[e]videnceof the alien's
authorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, in professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor
media."(Emphasisadded.)Generally,scholarlyarticlesarewrittenby andfor expertsin a particular
fieldof study.arepeer-reviewed,andcontainreferencesto sourcesusedin thearticles.In thiscase,the
recordlacksevidencedemonstratingthat thepetitioner'sarticleswerepeer-reviewed,containany
referencesto sources,or wereotherwiseconsidered"scholarly."Furthermore,thetranslationsof the
articlesdidnotcomplywiththetermsof8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3):
Translations.Any documentcontainingforeignlanguagesubmittedto [USCIS]shall
beaccompaniedbyafull Englishlanguagetranslationwhichthetranslatorhascertified
ascompleteandaccurate,andbythetranslator'scertificationthatheorsheiscompetent
totranslatefromtheforeignlanguageintoEnglish.
Page9
While thearticlesdocontaintranslations,thecertificateof accuracysignedby thetranslatoris for the
informationregardingthepublicationandnotfor thearticlesthemselves.
In light of the above,the petitionerhas not submittedqualifyingevidenceunder 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
C. Summary
As thepetitionerdidnot submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreecriteria,theproperconclusion
is that the petitionerhas failed to satisfythe antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof
evidence.Nevertheless,theAAO will reviewtheevidencein theaggregateaspartof our final merits
determination.
D. FinalMeritsDetermination
In accordancewiththeKazarianopinion,thenextstepisafinalmeritsdeterminationthatconsidersall
of the evidencein the contextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a "level of
expertiseindicatingthattheindividualisoneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof
the[ir] field of endeavor,"8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2);and(2) "thatthealienhassustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).SeeKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.
Thedirectorreviewedall of theevidencein therecordandprovideda detaileddiscussionof her
findingsin thefinal meritsdetermination.After carefulreviewof therecord,theAAO affirmsthe
director's findings. The classificationsoughtrequires"extensivedocumentation"of sustained
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).The commentaryfor the proposedregulations
implementingthestatuteprovidethatthe"intentof Congressthataveryhighstandardbesetfor aliens
of extraordinaryability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to presentmore
extensivedocumentationthanthatrequired"for lesserclassifications.56Fed.Reg.30703,30704(July
5, 1991).
As thepetitionersatisfiesonlya singlecriterion,theAAO cannotfind thatpetitioneris oneof thesmall
percentagewho hasrisento the top of his field or that the petitionerhassustainednationalor
internationalacclaim,asrequiredby8C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2)and(3). Evenassumingthatthepetitioner
wontheawardsreferencedin therecordforwhichthepetitionersubmittednopersuasiveevidenceto
demonstratethattheyarenationallyorinternationallyrecognized,theawardsalldatefrom2004or
earlier.As such,theycannotbythemselvesestablisheligibility. 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theyarealso
notindicativeof orconsistentwithsustainednationalorinternationalacclaim,asthepetitionerfiledthe
petitionon June1, 2011. On appeal,counselassertsthat"theAAO haspreviouslyexaminedthe
conceptof 'sustainedacclaim'in Matterof__, VSC,EAC02-099-53226."Counseldidnotinclude
acopyof theunpublisheddecision.While8C.F.R.§ 103.3(c)providesthatAAOprecedentdecisions
Page10
arebindingon all USCISemployeesin theadministrationof theAct, unpublisheddecisionsarenot
similarlybinding.
Furthermore,as indicatedby the offer letterfrom ShaolinAcademy,the petitioneris seekingto be
employedas a "Martial Arts Practitioner,"a positionthat will "require[] him to performChinese
martial arts in manynationaland internationallevel competitions;imparthis expertiseof Chinese
traditionalKungFuandWushuto thestudentsof ouracademy;andserveasa seniorinstructorfor our
managementteam." Therecordcontainsnoevidenceof thepetitioner'saccomplishmentsasinstructor.
Thestatuteandregulationsrequirethepetitioner'snationalorintemationalacclaimtobesustainedand
that he seeksto continuework in his area of expertisein the United States. See sections
203(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8U.S.C. §§l153(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(3)and(5). Whilea martialartsinstructoranda martialartistshareknowledgeof the
sport,thetwo rely onverydifferentsetsof basicskills. Thus,instructionandcompetitionarenotthe
sameareaof expertise.Thisinterpretationhasbeenupheldin federalcourt. In Leev.IN.S.,237F.
Supp.2d 914(N.D.Ill. 2002),thecourtstated:
It is reasonableto interpretcontinuingto work in one's"areaof extraordinaryability"
as working in the sameprofessionin which one has extraordinaryability, not
necessarilyin anyprofessionin thatfield. Forexample,Lee'sextraordinaryabilityas
a baseballplayerdoesnotimplythathealsohasextraordinaryabilityin all positions
orprofessionsin thebaseballindustrysuchasamanager,umpireorcoach.
Id. at 918. Thecourtnoteda consistenthistoryin thisarea.Whiletherecorddemonstratesthatthe
petitioner intendsto competeand work as an instructor,thereis no evidencedemonstratinghis
accomplishmentsas an instructor. While the AAO acknowledgesthe possibility of an alien's
extraordinaryclaim in more than one field, suchas martial arts instructorandmartial artist, the
petitioner,however,must demonstrate"by clear evidencethat the alien is comingto the United
Statesto continuework in theareaof expertise."See8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(5).
IIL CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalorintemationalacclaimandisoneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisentotheverytopofthefieldof endeavor.
Reviewof therecord,however,doesnotestablishthatthepetitionerhasdistinguishedhimselfto such
anextentthathe maybe saidto haveachievedsustainednationalor intemationalacclaimor to be
withinthesmallpercentageattheverytopof hisfield. Theevidenceindicatesthatthepetitioneris a
skilledmartialartist,butisnotpersuasivethatthepetitioner'sachievementssethimsignificantlyabove
almostall othersin hisfield. Therefore,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)oftheActandthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
Page11
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywiththepetitioner.Section291of
theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.Accordingly,theappeal
will bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.