dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics/Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
CENTER Date: Am 3 1 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
I 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.-8 1153(b)(l)(A) 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
%be* P. ~iemakirector 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Off~ce on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 0 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of exhaordinary ability. The 
directoq determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
requisitk to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the 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 - 
11 
(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 
1 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "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. 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability as a "management 
consuldt." The petition states that the petitioner will "assist in fund raising activities for Manna Relief 
Ministries working with medically fragile children." The petitioner initially submitted a June 19, 2003 letter 
fro- Chairman and Chief Executive Offcer of Mannatech, Incorporated that was captioned 'TN 
Visa Application for and The letter "[conf-] that- an 
- have been selected as an [sic] official spokespersons for Manna Relief, a non-profit childre 
ministry," employment which is "[iln addition to [the petitioner's] post as a distributor for ~annatech~~ 
Incorporated." A handwritten resume of the petitioner was the only other supporting evidence initially filed 
with the petition. 
On Seyternber 13, 2004, the director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOD) requesting the petitioner to 
submit evidence of a one-time achievement or evidence that he met at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 3 204.5@)(3). In response to the NOID, the petitioner submitted a letter from the Executive Director of 
M-elief, a letter from the petitioner, a copy of the petitioner's bachelor's degree, one recommendation 
letter, documents relating to the petitioner's participation in the 1992 Olympic games in Barcelona as a member 
of the 'Canadian Track and Field Team and his achievement at the 1993 World Indoor Track and Field 
Championships. The director determined that the record did not establish the petitioner's eligibility under any 
of the regulatory criteria and denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner submits five additional support letters 
and copies of articles written by the petitioner and his collaborators that were published in a medical journal. 
The petitioner claims these documents evidence his eligibility under the fifth, sixth, and eighth criteria at 8 
C.F.R. '3 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner's claims and the evidence submitted on appeal do not overcome the 
deficiencies of the petition and the appeal will be dismissed. 
We first note the minimal evidence submitted regarding the petitioner's claimed field of expertise and how it 
relates to his proposed employment. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(l)(A), allows 
irnmi&t classification of aliens with "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics." Although neither an employment offer nor a labor certification is required for classification as an 
alien with extraordmq ability, the petition must still show that the alien will continue working in his claimed 
area of expertise. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii). The record in this case 
demonspates that the petitioner is a former athlete, but he now seeks employment as a "management consultant" 
for a non-profit ministry. The petitioner has not stated in which category he claims extraordinary ability and the 
record only briefly describes his proposed job duties. The petition states that the petitioner will be employed as 
a "~ada~ement Consultant" to "assist in fund raising activities for MannaRelief Ministries working with 
medically fragile children," but the November 23,2004 letter oR(llsubmitted on appeal states that the 
petitioner has been "selected as an official spokesperson" for MannaRefief and that in addition to fund raising, 
he "will also be involved in sports management consulting with major sporting organizations, universities and 
high schools with implementation of our sports products." These duties are "[iln addition to his post as a 
distributor for MannatechTM Incorporated." ~r-ex~lains that "[the petitioner's] international status as a 
world class athlete will strengthen our exposure, sales and distribution." These statements indicate that the 
petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in both athletics and business and we have 
evaluated the record accordingly. The evidence submitted, the petitioner's claims and the director's decision are 
addressed in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The record contains six certificates and letters documenting the petitioner's participation in the 1992 Olympic 
Summer Games in Barcelona. In his personal statement, the petitioner claims he was the captain of the 
Canadian track and field team at the 1992 Olympics. The petitioner also submitted evidence that he participated 
in the 1993 World Indoor Track and Field Championships where he finished in fifth place in the 800-meter 
finals and in third place in the medley relay. The petitioner explains in his personal statement that he "retired 
from [his] sport in 1993 by breaking the Canadian 800m record at the World Championships in Stnttgart, 
Germany," although the record does not document his alleged Canadian 800 meters record. Simply going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crafr of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). This evidence demonstrates the petitioner's limited past 
acclaim as an athlete. 
The recbd does not establish, however, that the petitioner sustained his past acclaim as an athlete through his 
subsequent employmelit in an athletic-related business or his ministry work during the decade following his 
retirexn4nt from competitive sports and preceding the filing of his petition. The petitioner submits no evidence 
that he has received any nationally or internationally recow prizes or awards for his athletic-related 
business or ministry work over the past ten years. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, schlarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
majdr significance in thBeld 
11 
As discussed above under the first criterion, the record demonstrates that the petitioner is a fonner athlete who 
participated in major international competitions. The evidence submitted does not indicate, however, that the 
petitioner's athletic accomplishments made major contributions to his field. Although he participated in the 
1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, the petitioner apparently did not win a medal at those games. In his 
personal statement, the petitioner claims to have broken "the Canadian 800m record at the Wor[l]d 
Championships in Stuttgart, Germany" and maintained the record for ten years. The petitioner submitted 
evidence of his performance at these championships, but the record contains no corroborative evidence to 
support !his claim that he set a Canadian record for the 800 meters race, which he held for ten years. Simply 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Id. Even if the petitioner's past athletic contributions were sufficiently documented, they alone I would be insufficient to satisfy this criterion because they would indicate only past - not sustained - acclaim. 
I The record also does not demonstrate that the petitioner has made original business-related contributions of 
major significance to his field. On appeal, the petitioner submitted three recommendation letters from 
individdals he has worked with on athletic-related business. While such letters provide relevant information 
about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility 
under th!is criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field 
beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien Who has emed 
sustained national or international acclaim. ~ccordin~l~, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence 
of the petitioner's contributions. 
I1 
Chair of the Physical Education Department at HardinSimmons University in Abilene, 
Texas, states that his department and the petitioner "have partnered over the last two years to address health 
issues and collaborate by means of research projects." Specifically, Mr-xplains that their "main 
research; collaboration was conducted with help from the Hardin-Simmons Ubiversity men and women's 
soccer teams regarding recovery for athletes with injuries. The significant results of the research has been 
[sic] presented and published." Associate Professor within the Physical Education Department 
at ~ardih-simmons University, affm this collaboration and states that he has "worked very closely with 
[the petihoner~ over the last couple of years in conjunction with Mannatech Corporation. . . . In particular, 
[the petitioner] and I have worked side by side in completing a research study investigating the efficacy of a 
pre-exercise drink manufactured and marketed by Mannatech." The petitioner submitted a copy of an article 
entitled "The Effect of a Pre-Exercise Performance Drink on Aerobic Performance" co-authored by Professor 
that was published in the September 2004 edition of Proceedings of the Fisher 
but the article does not mention the petitioner. Even if the petitioner was 
identifi'kd, we could not consider the article as evidence of his contributions because it was published after 
the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
~inall~,a doctor of osteopathy employed by Family practice Associates in Abilene, Texas, 
affirms ,that the petitioner has been working with him "for the last year establishing protocols, monitorin and 
conducting research with me. Our study involves Mannatech Products and patients with 
We have had a preliminary paper published and the final results (end of study) are anticipated at approximately 
April 2005." The record contains an article co-authored by ~r.entitled "Preliminary Results of the 
Effects of Vutraceuiical Dietary Intervention in Myasthenia Gravis" that was published in the September 2004 
edition of Proceedings of the Fisher Institute for Medical Research. The second page of this article states, 
"Subjects were provided their dietary supplements while on the study for the duration of one 1 year. Manna 
Relief Miaistries and FFher Institute for Medical Research provided the supplements at no cost." The petitioner 
is not identifed or mentioned in the article, but even if he were we could not consider the article because it was 
published after the petition was filed. The petitioner must demonstrate his eligibility at the time of filing. Id. 
The only other evidence of the petitioner's recent work is a copy of an article entitled "Dietary 
supplementation and Several Hospital Employees: Three Case Reports." The petitioner is a co-author of 
this artible, which was published in the March 2004 edition of Proceedings of the Fisher Institute for 
Medical Research. Again, we cannot consider this article because it was published after the petition was 
filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility dt the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date 
after *elpetitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Id 
While ~r Professor and(~hief operating Officer of BUJO Enterprises 
bjmrpo~afed whose letter was su mtted with the petitioner's NOID response) all praise the petitioner's 
cnaracter, integrity and interpersonal skills, they do not identify any specific work of the petitioner that has been 
cboborated by independent evidence in the record as having made contributions of major significance to sports 
wicint!, athletic-related or ministry-related business consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Qonsequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
. (vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media 
4s discussed above under the fifth criterion, the record contains evidence of one article co-authored by the 
~~titioner that was published in March 2004. We cannot consider this evidence because it was published after 
e petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be 
% provq at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Id. The record contains 
+ evidence of any articles written by the petitioner that were published prior to filing and have been cited or 
c#herwise recogntzed in his field. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner's resume states that he was "President of the Athlete Council for Athletics Canada" and "Captain 
of Canada's Olympic Track & '~ield Team Barcelona, Spain 1992," but the record contains no evidence to 
corroborate these claims. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to 
meet th~ burden of proof in these proceedings. Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Yet even if the petitioner's past 
leadership positions as an athlete were documented, they alone would not suffice to meet this criterion because 
they would only evidence his past acclaim as an athlete and he record does not indicate that the petitioner has 
earned pe requisite sustained acclaim through his subsequent work. 
. of MannaRelief and MK. of ~annatech Incorporated verify in their letters that the petitioner 
hds been employed as a distributor for Mannatech Incorporated and as a spokesperson for MannaRelief. The 
explains in his personal statement that "I am truly blessed to work for Manuarelief to touch so many 
on a daily basis. The opportunity to raise funds to help these fragile kids and giving their families 
and prayer though our programs. Mannarelief has now sent our products globally to assist 
will not have an opportunity." In his October 13,2004 letter, Mr-tates that "[the 
status as a person as well as an Olympic world class athlete will strengthen our ability 
to touch children around the world. Mr. and Mrs. been a tremendous asset to our organization 
over the last several years." In both of his that the petitioner's :'international 
status as a world class athlete will distribution." ~rofessor- of ~ardin- 
Simmons University adds that without the petitioner, his research collaborations with Mannatech "would have 
never existed beyond &I idea or been the impetus behind current studies in progress as well as others in the 
making.:' ~rofessom also explains that he is "a current Mannatech associate and can speak with complete 
confidence that without [the petitioner's] guidance and leadership I would not be experiencing the personal 
health ahd financial benefits that I do today." 
While these letters indicate that the petitioner has made valuable contributions to Mannatech and MannaRelief, 
the record contains no evidence that either establishment has a distinguished reputation. Moreover, the record 
does not show that the &titioner9s role at either Mannatech or MannaRelief has earned him sustained national 
or international acclaim in sports medicine-related or ministry-related business. Accordingly, the petitioner does 
not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his field. The evidence in this case 
indicates that the petitioner was an accomplished athlete who competed in major international championships 
and has since made valuable contributions as a sports management consultant and ministry spokesperson. 
However, the record does not establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim as an athlete or business consultant placing him at the very top of his field. He is thus ineligible for 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
3 1153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. This decision is rendered without prejudice to the filing of a new .petition with the requisite 
supporting documents under sections 203(b)(l)(A) or 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 33 1153(b)(l)(A), 
1153(b)(2). 
Page 7 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.