dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics (Jai Alai)

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JUM 2 !t 2015 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service ~ 
Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusett s Ave .. N. W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
/ 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinaty Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(bXl)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case . 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requ irements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you , 
~0;[;:;=-
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~JON 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics, as a Jai Alai 
player, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 115 3 (b)( 1 )(A), which makes visas available to petitioners 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 determined that the 
petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which 
requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii) and (ix). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the director that the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the 
regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is 
one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the 
petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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 H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. !d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the alien's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the alien's achievements in the field 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If 
the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying 
evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 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 detennination) ; see also Rijal v. 
USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of 
Kazarian), 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 USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter o.fChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for 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 
A. Prior P-1 Visa Approvals 
While USCIS has approved at least one P-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the 
petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. The regulatory requirements for an immigrant 
and nonimmigrant visa in the athletics are different. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(4) 
provides that an athlete may be approved a nonimmigrant visa upon a showing that he "is an 
internationally recognized athlete based on his . . . own reputation and achievements as an 
individual." The regulation further defines "internationally recognized" in athletics as "having a 
high level of achievement in a field evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially 
above that ordinarily encountered, to the extent that such achievement is renowned, leading, or well­
known in more than one country." 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(3). The regulation relating to the immigrant 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
classification, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), however, defines extraordinary ability in any field 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." As such, the petitioner's approval for a nonimmigrant visa under the 
standard of "having a high level of achievement ... substantially above that ordinarily encountered" 
is insufficient to demonstrate his eligibility for an "extraordinary ability" immigrant visa. 
B. Translations of Foreign Language Documents 
The petitioner has submitted a number of foreign language documents. The petitioner, however, has 
not submitted English translations, that meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). Specifically, the regulation provides: "Any document containing 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 foreign language into English." In his initial filing, the petitioner 
submitted three types of translation certifications. They are for translations from (1) Basque to 
English, (2) Spanish to English, and (3) French to English. None of the certificates affirm that the 
English translations are "full" and "complete" as required under the regulation. Moreover, some of 
the English translations are entitled "Translation (Article Clip, Excerpt)," signifying that the 
translations are not full and complete. Furthermore, the Basque translation certification references a 
single "attached" translation it is certifying and the petitioner submitted copies of the same 
certification to accompany all translations from Basque. As the certification does not identify all the 
translations it is certifying, it is not probative evidence that the translator of each Basque translation 
certified that translation. The remaining initial translation certifications do not identify the 
translations they certify; rather, they also reference a translation of a single "attached" document. 
This blanket translation certification is not 
probative evidence that the translator of each Spanish and 
French document the petitioner initially submitted certified the translation. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted a translation 
certificate dated October 16, 2014, which relates to the translations from Spanish to English. This 
certificate similarly does not affirm that the English translations provided are "full" or "complete and 
accurate," as required under the plain language of the regulation. Accordingly, the foreign language 
documents in the record have diminished evidentiary value. 
C. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims 
to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field o.fendeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The director found that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record does not support 
this finding. We may deny an application or petition that does not comply with the technical 
requirements of the law even if the director does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises , Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. Dep 't o.f Justice , 381 F.3d 143, 
145-46 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Specifically, as discussed, the petitioner has not submitted English translations that meet the 
regulatory requirements under 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). As such, the foreign language documents in 
the record have diminished evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish that he meets this 
criterion. If we are to consider the foreign language documents and their English translations, 
however, they appear to establish that the petitioner has met this criterion. According to the English 
translation for a December 4, 2013 certificate from the between 1996 
and 2002, the petitioner received "the title of champion at the Tournament, which is the 
most renowned championship between territorial Federations." The ce1iificate further provides that 
the petitioner has "won numerous championships, such as the 
" According to the English translation for an April 3, 2014 letter from 
President of in 2013, the petitioner won the 
Tournament that the club organizes. The letter provides that the club "choose[s] the best player[s] of 
the year between those who play in the United States and Europe" and that the competition is "one 
of the best tournaments of the year." According to the English translation for a July 10, 2014 
certificate from in 2001, the petitioner won the 
Tournament, in which "the best players in the top 16 clubs" participated. The letter 
further states that clubs from various regions and provinces of Spain and two clubs from France 
participated in the event. 
The petitioner has submitted some evidence showing that the tournaments in which he participated 
received media coverage. The English translation for an undated article entitled "_ 
petitioner and his partner 
tournament within the 
translation for an 
-
his partner won "the 
" published in the states that the 
won the final match for the A ward, which is "a 
" According to the English 
2011 article entitled " - -
," posted on noticias.lainformation.com, the petitioner and 
Council." According to the English translation for a . 
, organized by the World 
2007 article entitled " 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
_ _ " the petitioner and his partner won 
the final match at the Had the petitioner submitted English translations 
for these foreign language documents that meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(3 ), it appears that the petitioner might be able to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has not submitted English translations that meet the regulatory 
requirements , the petitioner has not presented documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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 class(fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion. The evidence in the record does not 
support the petitioner 's assertion. As noted in the director's decision, the petitioner has not shown 
that the published materials are about the petitioner, relating to his work as a Jai Alai player. Rather, 
the materials are about tournaments in which the petitioner participated. The petitioner has not 
shown that published materials that reference the petitioner as having participated in certain 
tournaments, and that focus on the tournaments as a whole, constitute published materials about the 
petitioner, relating to his work. 
In addition, as discussed, the pet1t10ner has not submitted English translations that meet the 
regulatory requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Without full and complete English 
translations of the foreign language materials, the petitioner has not shown that the published 
materials are about him, relating to his work as a Jai Alai player. In his initial filing, the petitioner 
submitted a number of foreign language materials. The English translations are entitled "Translation 
(Article Clip, Excerpt), signifying that the translations are not full or complete. Also, a comparison 
between the foreign language materials and their corresponding English translations indicate that the 
translations are not complete. For example, the foreign language material that the petitioner asserts 
is published in . in 2014 contains multiple paragraphs. The corresponding English 
translation, however, has two sentences. The foreign language material that the petitioner asserts 
was published in on 2001 has four paragraphs. The corresponding English 
translation, however, has one sentence. The foreign language material published in , 
on 2006 has four paragraphs and multiple sentences. The corresponding English 
translation, however, has two sentences. The foreign language material published in 
, entitled ' _ 
," has two paragraphs, each with multiple sentences. The corresponding English 
translation, however, has two sentences. The foreign language material published in 
on 2009 has multiple paragraphs and multiple sentences. The corresponding English 
translation, however, has one sentence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 7 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted English re-translations of a number of 
published materials. As discussed, the certificate of translation the petitioner filed in his RFE 
response, like those he initially filed in support of the petition, does not meet the regulatory 
requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). As such, the foreign language materials and their 
corresponding English re-translations have diminished evidentiary value. 
Moreover, although the petitioner asserts that some of the foreign language materials he initial filed 
in support of his petition were published in various newspapers, including and 
the foreign language clippings do not include the name of the publication. The petitioner has 
not submitted any evidence, such as letters from the publications or clippings that include the name 
of the publication, verifying the publication of the foreign language materials or the date of 
publication. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. A1atter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 15 8, 
165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Cra.fi ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). As such, the petitioner has not shown that these materials constitute published 
materials in the specified media. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that any of the 
publications or websites that published the materials are professional or major trade publications or 
major media. The petitioner has submitted an online document entitled ' _ ' from 
stating that is the third largest general-interest newspaper in Spain. The 
petitioner, however, did not submit a published material from rather he submitted material 
published in The petitioner has not shown that~ and are one and 
the same, such that" like , is the third largest general-interest newspaper in Spain. 
The petitioner has not established that is a national publication, rather than a local 
edition of. with a distribution and reach primarily in the region of Spain. As such, the 
petitioner has not shown that" constitutes major media. 
The petitioner has also submitted evidence about 
and The evidence, however, does not show that any of the 
publications, either in print or online, are professional or major trade publications or major media. 
According to an online printout from in the , one of 1 7 
regwns m sells about 126,000 copies per issue and . sells 
67,000 per issue. The petitioner has not shown that the national distribution level of either 
publication is indicative of its status as major media. Notably, the same website indicates that the 
top selling newspaper in Spain, is a nationally distributed ne\vspaper that sells 458,000 
copies per issue. In addition, the same website states that and are 
both regional, not national, publications. The petitioner has not shown that these regional 
publications constitute major media in Spain. The evidence the petitioner has submitted for the other 
publications, and does not include information relating to the 
publications' reach or distribution level, which might demonstrate whether they are major media. 
The evidence also does not show that they are professional or major trade publications. 
(b)(6)
1VON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner has submitted a Wikipedia entry entitled ' '' As there are 
no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site, we will not 
assign evidentiary weight to information from Wikipedia.3 See Badasa v. iVfukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 
910-11 (8th Cir. 2008). In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a document 
entitled ' · noting that the document relates to the Wikipedia material he initially 
submitted in support of the petition. Although the document includes some English language 
information, it also includes foreign language information that has not been fully translated into 
English. As such, the document has diminished evidentiary weight. Moreover, the document 
appears to provide information relating to publications' "net circulation average." The circulation 
information is arranged alphabetically by publication name and it provides information relating to 
publications whose names begin with the letters A through L. As such, the document does not 
provide information on all publications in Spain or show that any of the listed publications 
constitutes major media. 
The petitioner has submitted published material that is in English. Specifically, the petitioner has 
submitted an article entitled ' " posted on a blog, 
This article mentions the petitioner and his playing style. The 
petitioner, however, has not shown that the blog constitutes professional or major trade publication 
or major media. The material also does not identify the author of the material as required by the 
plain language of the criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted published material about him in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, relating to his work in the field for which classification is 
sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign~ficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
3 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer entitled "WIKIPEDIA 
MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY": 
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary 
association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human 
knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its 
content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people 
with the 
expertis-e required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information . 
. . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the infonnation found here. The content of 
any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose 
opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields .... 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, accessed on May 12, 2015, copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The record does not support this 
conclusion. We may deny an application or petition that does not comply with the technical 
requirements of the law even if the director does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043; see also Soltane, 381 F.3d at 
145-46. 
The petitioner submitted his Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement 
showing that he earned $87,303.79 in wages, tips and other compensation in 2013. The petitioner 
has also submitted employment contracts from 2003 to 2013, showing that he earned a base salary 
between $1,800 and $2,400 for each full calendar month of playing Jai Alai. The petitioner has 
submitted online printout from onetonline.org, showing that in 2013 the annual median wage for 
"Athletes and Sports Competitors" is $39,050; and an online printout from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS), showing that in May 2013, the annual median wage for "Athletes and Sports 
Competitors" in Spectator Sports is $79,130. Salary information relating to athletes in general, not 
limited to Jai Alai players, does not demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion, as athletes in 
general includes many athletes who are not in the same field or sport as the petitioner. The petitioner 
must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that he has earned a "high salary" or 
"significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work during the 
same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering 
professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Crimson v. INS, 934 F. 
Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); 
Afuni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary ofNHL defensive player 
to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted an online printout from salaryexpert.com, 
showing that the average annual salary for a Jai Alai Player in Florida is between $60,000 and 
$80,000. Although this information shows that in 2013, the petitioner earned more than the average 
Jai Alai player in Florida, it does not show that he "commended a high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field." First, earning a salary that is more 
than the average salary does not constitute earning a "high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration." Second, "others in the field" includes Jai Alai players who work and live outside 
Florida. 
According to a September 19, 2014 letter from President of the 
the petitioner's annual salary "is a salary corresponding only to the top 
players in the field of Jai Alai in the United States." The letter, however, provides no salary 
information relating to other players or top players in the United States, or evidence demonstrating 
that the petitioner's salary constitutes a high salary or significantly high remuneration, as compared 
to others in the sport. As such, Mr. statement relating to the petitioner's salary is 
conclusory and does not demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5. USCIS need 
(b)(6)
NON-P RECEDE}\lT DECISION 
Page 10 
not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 17 56. Inc., 7 45 F. Supp. at 17. Moreover, according 
to an article the petitioner has submitted, " " 
posted on there are Jai Alai players in Miami who "make well into the six figures," 
which is more than what the petitioner made in 20 13. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that he has commanded a high 
salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
rr the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may 
submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
In his initial filing and in response to the director's RFE, the petitioner asserted that he had submitted 
comparable evidence under the regulation. On appeal, however, the petitioner has not continued to 
assert that he has submitted evidence comparable to evidence that meets any of the ten criteria listed 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did 
not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th 
Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 
2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal). 
In the alternative, the petitioner has not shown that he may submit comparable evidence. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) provides: "[i]f the above standards [set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)] do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit 
comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility." To establish that the petitioner may 
submit comparable evidence, the petitioner must first demonstrate that the criteria listed in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) "do not readily apply to [his] occupation." In this case, the petitioner seeks to 
enter the United States to work as a Jai Alai player. He has not, however, shown that the regulatory 
criteria do not readily apply to his occupation. In his initial filing, the petitioner asserted that he met 
three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, he assetied that he met the prizes or awards 
criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i); the published material criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii); and 
the high salary or other significantly high remuneration criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). In 
response to the director's RFE, the petitioner continued to assert that he met these three criteria. 
Significantly, federal courts have held in a number of cases that the criteria listed under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) apply to athletes and coaches. See Braga, 2007 WL 9229758, at *6-7; 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35; Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F. Supp. 2d 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); 
Russell v. INS, No. 98 C 6132, 2001 WL 11055 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2001). The petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient legal support that demonstrates that the criteria listed in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his occupation as a Jai Alai player. As such, the 
petitioner has not shown that he may submit comparable evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Moreover, the petitioner submits evidence relating to his ranking within the Miami Jai Alai at 
and Jai Alai and a number of reference letters as comparable evidence. He has not, however, 
shown that the evidence is comparable to evidence that meets any of the ten criteria listed in 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The petitioner has not shovm that his ranking within one club in one 
state is evidence comparable to evidence that meets any of the criteria. Similarly, the petitioner has 
not shown that the reference letters, which praise the petitioner's skills as a Jai Alai player and 
provide primarily conclusory statements on the petitioner's acclaim in the sport, constitute evidence 
comparable to evidence that meets any of the criteria. See USCIS Policy Memorandum "Evaluation 
of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field 
Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFMUpdate ADll-14," PM-602-0005.1 (Dec. 22, 2010) at 12. 
Accordingly, on appeal, the petitioner has abandoned the issue of comparable evidence. In the 
alternative, the petitioner has not shown that the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 203.4(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to his occupation such that he may submit comparable evidence or that the evidence is 
comparable. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
D. Summary 
The petitioner has submitted a number of reference letters in support of his petition. Although the 
reference lettersdiscuss the petitioner's skills as a Jai Alai player, they do not specifically address or 
establish that the petitioner meets any of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). For the reasons discussed above, with the record supports the 
director's determination that the petitioner has not submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this 
case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 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," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence on which the petitioner relies 
on appeal in the aggregate, including the petitioner's employment and earnings as a Jai Alai player 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
and his competitive achievements, supports a finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated, 
through the submission of extensive evidence, the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.4 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) . In any future proceeding , we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final 
merits determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); see 
also INA§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March I, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.P.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter~~ Aurelio, 19 l&N Dec. 458,460 (BJA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).