dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

p1even~ (:.:C~l·!y Un"v'lh3.fIi
A
anted 
hnl2SZc:t2 P::!~'§(U~n privacy 
U.S. Dcpartment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizcnship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .• MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-:W90 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: DEC 0 2 2011 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § IIS3(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
(4!!!fee~ noG 
~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO acknowledges that the standard of proof is 
preponderance of the evidence, as noted by counsel on appeal. The "preponderance of the 
evidence" standard, however, does not relieve the petitioner from satisfying the basic evidentiary 
requirements required by the statute and regulations. Therefore, if the statute and regulations 
require specific evidence, the petitioner is required to submit that evidence. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). In 
this matter, the documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance 
of the evidence that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
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 
Page 3 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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 101st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Ped. 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. Id. and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) 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 classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles ill the field, ill 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
Page 4 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria 
at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." [d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 c.P.R. § 204.S(h)(2), and "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)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § l1S3(b)(1)(A)(i). 
[d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Expertise in the United States 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in his area of 
expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.s.c. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, in Part 6, "Basic information about the proposed employment," the petitioner lists his 
job title as "Taekwondo Headmaster & Coach." Subsequent to his arrival in the United States in 
2003, the record reflects that the petitioner worked as a taekwondo instructor and coach' . 
at Park's World Champion Taekwondo in Connecticut and later at 
The submitted a February 12, 2010 letter from 
stating: 
We are offering [the petitioner] a permanent full-time posItIon as Taekwondo 
Headmaster & Coach. [The petitioner] will train and coach our student athletes, teaching 
them various techniques and strategies to be successful in tournaments .... He will train 
athletes for tournaments, observe them during practices to detect and correct mistakes, 
and explain the rules and regulations of the tournaments. 
Based on the preceding letter from _, the petitioner's employment as a taekwondo coach 
after his arrival in this country in 2003, and the information provided on the Form 1-140, the 
record is clear that the petitioner intends to continue to work in the area of taekwondo coaching 
and instruction in the United States. 
Aside from documentation establishing the petitioner's intention to continue to work in the 
United States as a Taekwondo Headmaster and Coach, the petitioner submitted evidence of his 
athletic accomplishments as a taekwondo competitor in Korea and the United States in the 
1990s. According to the petitioner's "Certificate of Taekwondo Experience" from the Korea 
Taekwondo Association, his career as a taekwondo athlete ended in 1999. While a taekwondo 
competitor and a coach may share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different sets of 
basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are not the same area of expertise. This 
interpretation has been upheld in Federal Court. In Lee v. I.N.s., 237 F. SUpp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 
2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in 
any profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player 
does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the 
baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Page 6 
[d. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. While the record demonstrates that the 
petitioner intends to continue working as a taekwondo coach, there is no evidence indicating that 
he intends to compete in taekwondo tournaments in the United States. The AAO acknowledges 
the possibility of an alien's extraordinary claim in more than one field, such as a taekwondo coach 
and a taekwondo competitor, but the petitioner must demonstrate "by clear evidence that the alien 
is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(S). In this case, there is no evidence establishing that the petitioner intends to continue 
working in the United States as a taekwondo competitor. Accordingly, the petitioner must satisfy 
the statutory requirement at section 203(b )(1)(A)(i) of the Act as well as the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3) through his achievements as a coach. 
USCIS recognizes that there exists a nexus between competing and coaching in a given sport. To 
assume that every extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, however, would be 
too speculative. To resolve this issue, a balanced approach is appropriate when reviewing the 
evidence of record. Specifically, in a case where an alien has achieved recent national or 
international acclaim as a competitive athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of 
coaching at a national level, the AAO can consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an 
overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that the AAO can conclude that 
coaching is within the alien's area of expertise. However, as the petitioner in the present matter 
has had an extended period of time to establish his reputation as a coach beyond the years in which 
he competed as an athlete in the 1990s, the petitioner must demonstrate his extraordinary ability as 
a coach. 
III. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence 
under 8 c.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3).2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing that he received nationally recognized awards 
in championship competitions in Korea and the United States in the 1990s. For instance, the 
petitioner won the gold medal in the flyweight division at the 1993 
The "field of endeavor" for which classification is sought, however, IS 
coaching. There is no evidence indicating that the petitioner seeks to work in the United States as a 
taekwondo competitor. A wards resulting from the petitioner's victories as a competitor in 
taekwondo tournaments during the 1990s cannot be considered evidence of his national recognition 
as a coach or an instructor. As previously discussed, the statute and regulations require that the 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 7 
petitioner seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). See also Lee v. 
I.N.s., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. Accordingly, the petitioner's competitive awards in various 
taekwondo championships in the 1990s do not meet the elements of this regulatory criterion for 
purposes of establishing his extraordinary ability as a coach. 
The petitioner submitted a July 7, 2009 Citation presented to him by the World Taekwondo 
Federation in recognition of his "dedicated service and outstanding contribution to the development 
of Taekwondo." The petitioner also submitted an accompanying letter from the Deputy Secretary 
General of the World Taekwondo Federation stating: 
It is a great honor and privilege to recognize [the petitioner] with this award of citation from 
the World Taekwondo Federation ... for his dedication and contributions to the 
development of Taekwondo. Throughout his entire academic and professional career [the 
petitioner] proved innumerable times his great knowledge and skill in the art of Taekwondo. 
He has shared his techniques and his passion in the United States for 5 years wherein 
physical strengthening, along with a heightened sense of etiquette and moral understanding 
are part and parcel of the life lessons taught on a daily basis. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's July 7, 2009 Citation is a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in taekwondo coaching rather than simply an 
acknowledgement of his length of service as an instructor and dedication to the sport. Further, 
The petitioner did not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of his particular 
award, such as national or widespread local coverage of his award in professional or general media. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his 
burden to establish every element of this criterion. There is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's Citation from the World Taekwondo Federation is recognized 
beyond the presenting organization and therefore commensurate with nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted an October 5,2009 "Presidential Physical Fitness Award" presented to him 
"in recognition of outstanding physical achievement and exceptional dedication to the ideal of a 
sound mind in a strong body" through a "program of the President's Council on Physical Fitness 
and Sports." The petitioner's "Table of Exhibits" states that the petitioner received this award as 
"part of the President's Challenge program.,,3 There is no documentary evidence showing that the 
3 The website of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports states: "The President's Challenge is a 
program that encourages all Americans to make being active part of their everyday lives. No matter what your 
activity and fitness level, the President's Challenge can help motivate you to improve. Start earning Presidential 
awards for your daily physical activity and fitness efforts. Click on the appropriate age group and sign up today 
(Kids, Teens, Adults, Seniors). Click Educators or Groups to learn how to adapt the President's Challenge to your 
special educational need or group program." See http://www.fitness.gov/homepreschall.htm. accessed on 
November 16, 20 II, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. According to the President's Challenge 
Page 8 
petitioner's Presidential Physical Fitness Award is a nationally or internationally recognized award 
for excellence in taekwondo coaching. 
The director found that the petitioner had failed to submit evidence showing that he has received 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence as a coach and 
headmaster of taekwondo. On appeal, counsel argues that the director erred by failing to 
consider "the awards earned by [the petitioner's] students in Taekwondo competitions, both in 
Korea and the United States." The plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
requires documentation of "the alien's receipt" of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Prizes or awards received by individuals other 
than the petitioner himself do not meet the plain language requirements of the regulation. The 
AAO finds that the director's analysis was consistent with the relevant regulatory language set 
forth in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). "[N]either USCIS nor an AAO may unilaterally 
impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5." See Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d at 1121 (citing Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 
F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2008)). Awards received by the petitioner's students in various athletic 
competitions do not equate to his receipt of those prizes. Nevertheless, the awards received by 
athletes the petitioner has coached will not be ignored and shall be considered later in this 
decision under the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and again in the final merits 
determination. 
As there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has received nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in coaching or taekwondo instruction, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted his 2008 USA Taekwondo Membership Card, but there is no evidence 
(such as bylaws or rules of admission) showing that USA Taekwondo requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field. 
website, students achieving a standardized physical fitness test score "at or above the 85th percentile on all five 
activities" are eligible to receive the "Presidential Physical Fitness Award." See http://www.presidentschallenge.org! 
chal1enge/physicallbenchmarks.shtml, accessed on November 16, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. "Presidential Physical Fitness Award" certificates are available for purchase online through the 
President's Challenge website for $0.50. See hups://www.presidentschalienge.org!shop/product.php?i=lS, accessed 
on November 16, 20 I I, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 9 
The petitioner submitted a "Dan Certificate" from the President of the Kukkiwon (World 
Taekwondo Headquarters) indicating that the petitioner earned his 6th Dan (Sixth Degree) Black 
Belt designation on April 20, 2009. The petitioner's certificate states: "This is to certify that 
[the petitioner] has successfully completed the Dan promotion test by Kukkiwon." The 
petitioner also submitted a July 2, 2009 letter from the Secretary General of the World 
Taekwondo Federation stating: 
In order to obtain a Dan ranking, an athlete must possess mastery in the field, show good 
results in tournaments as well pass rigorous exams. The higher the Dan level a person 
has achieved equates his superior abilities in the discipline. 
In the United States ... there are only 902 individuals that hold 6th Dan black belt .... 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted May 4, 2010 statistics 
from the Kukkiwon entitled "Current Numbers of DanIPoomse by Evaluated Regions (by 
country)." According to the submitted data, 4,090,121 taekwondo practitioners worldwide 
(including youth) obtained a Dan ranking from the Kukkiwon and 7,530 were certified as 
attaining the 6th Dan. The data also indicates that 3,117 practitioners worldwide achieved 7th 
Dan, 1,098 achieved 8th Dan, and 499 achieved 9th Dan. Information regarding the number of 
worldwide practitioners who have attained the 10th Dan was omitted. In Korea, 3,740,931 
taekwondo practitioners in the country obtained a Dan ranking and 4,867 were certified as 
attaining the 6th Dan. The data also indicates that in Korea 1,773 practitioners achieved 7th Dan, 
771 achieved 8th Dan, and 387 achieved 9th Dan. Information regarding the number of 
practitioners in Korea who have attained the 10th Dan was omitted. In the United States, 85,311 
taekwondo practitioners in the country obtained a Dan ranking from the Kukkiwon and 973 were 
certified as attaining the 6th Dan. The data also indicates that in the United States 576 
practitioners achieved 7th Dan, 162 achieved 8th Dan, and 70 achieved 9th Dan. Information 
regarding the number practitioners in the United States who have attained the 10th Dan was 
omitted. 
On appeal, counsel argues that in Korea "only 4,867 or .13% have 6th Dan membership." 
Counsel's calculation does not account for those who have attained the higher 7th, 8th, 9th, and 
10th Dan level certifications. Nevertheless, the issue for this regulatory criterion is not the 
percentage of taekwondo practitioners who have attained 6th Dan certification, but rather whether 
the petitioner holds membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
The petitioner submitted the Promotion Test Regulations as posted on the Kukkiwon's internet site. 
"Article 7: Test Performance" states: 
1. Each test will consist of practical testing and theoretical study and it will be carried out 
in the following ways: 
Page 10 
* * * 
(2) Over 6th Dan promotion testing shall conduct the practical and theoretical 
test. However, for a [sic] applicants staying abroad, practical test shall be 
conducted and recommended by the instructor who is recognized by the 
Kikkiwon [sic] or Member National Association. However one should submit a 
treatise not less than 10 page of A4 size ... paper in Korean, English, French, 
German or Spanish with the application forms. Subject will be determined 
separately. 
* * * 
4. Applicants worldwide for 8th and 9th Dan promotion should take physical performance 
test at the Kukkiwon .... 
"Article 8: Time & Age Limits for Poom or Dan Promotion" states: 
PoomlDan Minimum Time Required for Promotion Age Limits for Promotion 
Start from Poom 
* * * 
1st Dan N/A N/A 
1 st to 2nd Dan 1 year 15 years and above 
2nd to 3rd Dan 2 year 15 years and above 
3rd to 4th Dan 3 year 18 years and above 
4th to 5th Dan 4 year 22 years and above 
5th to 6th Dan 5 year 30 years and above 
6th to 7th Dan 6 year 36 years and above 
7th to 8th Dan 8 year 44 years and above 
8th to 9th Dan 9 year 53 years and above 
9th to 10th Dan N/A 60 years and above 
* * * 
Page 11 
Remarks: 
(1) All applicants should have passed the minimum time and age required for promotion. 
Article 10 identifies the subjects of the promotion test stating: 
1. Test of Techniques 
(1) Poomsae (Forms) 
(2) Kyorugi (Sparring) 
(3) Kyokpa (Power check) 
(4) Special technique 
2. Test of theoretical study (over 4th Dan applicant) 
(1) Written examination 
(2) Thesis 
"Article 12: Scoring the Test" states: 
1. Scoring for the test shall be performed by means of attached forms and the main 
principles are as follows: 
(1) The members of the promotion board should be consisted of an odd number (3 or 
5 persons) and shall score the player within 100 points. 
(2) One who obtains over 60 points will be passed and under 59 points will be failed. 
Satisfying practical testing requirements, theoretical testing requirements, and minimum time and 
age promotion requirements are not tantamount to outstanding achievements. Further, the AAO is 
not persuaded that attaining a Dan level through successful demonstration of skills or knowledge in 
a promotion test constitutes membership in an association. Moreover, while the petitioner has met 
the time and skill requirements necessary to attain his 6th Dan level certification, there is no 
evidence showing that the World Taekwondo Federation or the Kukkiwon require attainment of a 
6th Dan ranking for admission to membership.4 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires 
"membership in associations" in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single 
high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it 
expressly does so as when it states at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience 
must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining 
regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability 
4 For instance, there is no evidence showing that lower Dan levels are excluded from their membership bodies. 
Page 12 
to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See 
Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); 
Snapnames.com Inc. v. ChertofJ, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a 
combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner were to establish that his 
6th Dan level certification from the Kukkiwon meets the elements of this regulatory criterion, which 
it does not, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of 
the petitioner's membership in more than one association requiring outstanding achievements of 
its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien IS work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers. 5 
The petitioner submitted various newspaper articles from the 1990s mentioning his performances 
as a taekwondo competitor. With regard to the preceding articles, the record contains an October 
27, 2009 "Certification of Translation" from _ stating: "This is to certify that I am 
fluent in the Korean and English languages and that I translated the documents pertaining to [the 
petitioner] to the best of my abilities from the Korean to English languages." However, it is 
unclear which of the articles, if any, to which the translator certification pertains. The 
submission of a translation certification that does not specifically identify the document or 
documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(3), which requires that any document containing foreign language submitted 
to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that 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 response to the director's 
request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an additional translator certification from _ 
_ dated May 5, 2010. _ certification identifies "South Korean Newspaper 
Publication Information Translations" as the material translated, but her certification does not 
5 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 13 
specifically list each of the translated documents. Moreover, _ translator certification 
appears to relate to documents printed from Korean publishers' websites providing distribution 
information for their newspapers rather than the published material written about the petitioner. 
Many of the articles submitted by the petitioner are about his team in general or tournaments in 
which he participated and the articles only briefly mention his results along with those of the 
other participants. The plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), however, 
requires that the published material be "about the alien." See, e.g., Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 
2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1,*7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a 
show are not about the actor). For instance, the petitioner submitted an article in Korean Daily 
entitled "City of Young Chung Wins the Finals," but the article only briefly mentions the petitioner. 
Further, the date of the article was not provided as required by the by the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Similarly, an October 23, 1997 article entitled 
"Taekwondo Dynasty is Born!" includes a photograph of the petitioner and six others, but the article 
is not about the petitioner. Further, the author of the article was not identified as required by the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a May 8, 1991 article about him in the author of the 
material was not identified and the English language translation accompanying the article was 
not certified as required by the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner's evidence 
included additional newspaper articles submitted by the petitioner, but none of the articles meet 
all of the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). For example, the 
remaining articles were deficient in that they did not include a date or an author, they were not 
about the petitioner, they lacked a full English language translation in compliance with the 
regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), or they lacked evidence that they were published in 
major media. Moreover, none of the Korean language articles relate to the petitioner's work in 
coaching and instruction, the field for which classification is sought. The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires "published material about the alien . . . in the field for which 
classification is sought." There is no evidence indicating that the petitioner seeks to continue work 
in the United States as a taekwondo competitor. As previously discussed, the statute and 
regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue to work in his area of expertise in the 
United States. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). See also Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. Accordingly, published material 
about the petitioner's achievements as a taekwondo competitor does not meet the elements of this 
regulatory criterion for purposes of establishing his extraordinary ability as a coach. 
The petitioner submitted a captioned photograph identifying him and more than a dozen other 
individuals from his taekwondo school in the February 13, 2003 issue of The Trumbull Times. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "published material about the alien" 
including "the title, date and author of the material." The captioned photograph does not meet 
these requirements. Further, there is no circulation evidence showing that The Trumbull Times 
qualifies as a form of major media. 
Page 14 
The petitioner submitted a March 20, 2003 article in The Courier entitled "Osterberg breaks 
boards, earns black belt." The article is about 13-year-old earning his black belt 
at Park's World Champion Taekwondo and the article only mentions the petitioner in passing. 
Moreover, there is no evidence showing that The Courier qualifies as a form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. Certificate of Appreciation from the President of the Connecticut Taekwondo 
Association thanking the petitioner for his "Service as a Referee in _ 
2. Appreciation Award from the 2006 New York State Taekwondo Championship 
presented to the petitioner in appreciation of his "hard work dedication to Taekwon 
Do"; 
3. Certificate of Appreciation from the President of the Rhode Island State Taekwondo 
Association thanking the petitioner for his "Service as a Referee in The 22
nd 
Rhode 
Island Open Taekwondo Championships" (2006); 
4. Certificate of Appreciation thanking the petitioner for his "participation and service in 
making the 6th Annual Connecticut Taekwondo Open as success" (2005); 
5. Certificate from the President of the Massachusetts State Taekwondo Association 
thanking the petitioner for his "service as a referee during the 2006 Massachusetts 
State Taekwondo Open Championships"; 
6. Certificate of Appreciation from the President of the Rhode Island State Taekwondo 
Association thanking the petitioner for his "Participation and Service to The Rhode 
Island State & Open Taekwondo Championship" (2004); 
7. Certificate of Appreciation presented to the petitioner by the President of the 
Massachusetts State Taekwondo Association stating: "For Your Outstanding 
Dedication and Tireless Contribution To The Massachusetts State Taekwondo 
Association. In recognition of your efforts & devotion to the promotion of the art of 
Taekwondo in the United States"; 
8. Certificate of Appreciation presented to the petitioner by the President of Y oung-In 
University stating: "With our Deepest Appreciations; To Your Support and 
Dedications; Your Leadership is Highly Recognized, And Valued By The 
Taekwondo Community 1 st Y oung-In University Taekwondo Championships At : 
Harvard University, Boston" (2003). 
None of the preceding certificates states that the petitioner participated as a "judge" of the work 
of others in his sport. Items 1, 3, and 5 thank the petitioner for his "service as a referee" and 
items 2, 4, and 6 - 8 thank the petitioner for his hard work, dedication, participation, service, 
Page 15 
tireless contribution, support, efforts, devotion to the promotion of taekwondo, and leadership. 
Items 2, 4, and 6 - 8 do not provide specific information regarding the petitioner's activities at 
the championships or otherwise establish his participation, either individually or on a panel, as a 
judge of the work of others in his field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted letters of support from 
the President of the Massachusetts State Taekwondo Association and the President of the Rhode 
Island Taekwondo Association confirming that the petitioner participated as a "referee" in their 
states' Taekwondo championships. Regarding the certificates thanking the petitioner for his 
participation as a "referee" at the 30th Connecticut Taekwondo Championships in 2006 (item 1), 
the 22nd Rhode Island Open Taekwondo Championships in 2006 (item 3), and the Massachusetts 
State Taekwondo Open Championships in 2006 (item 5), the petitioner has not established that 
serving as a "referee" equates to participating as a 'judge" of the work of others. The 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included a May 4, 2010 letter from 
Jun Bang Yang, Secretary General, Korea Taekwondo Association, stating: 
Winners in Taekwondo competitions are determined immediately after competition. A 
referee and three judges officiate each match. Judges award points for every valid 
execution by an athlete (kicks landed to the opponent's head and body, or punches to the 
body). Judges immediately tally all valid points used to determine the winner of the 
competition. The referee declares the start and end of a match, as well as the winner and 
loser. The referee controls the tournament and gives warnings, penalties, and point 
deductions, but does not award points. 
[Emphasis added.] 
The petitioner's response also included the World Taekwondo Federation's "Competition Rules 
& Interpretation." 
"Article 3 Competition Area" states: 
2. Indication of Positions 
1) Position of the Referee: The position of the Referee shall be marked at a point 
1.5m back from the center point of the Contest Area to the 3rd Boundary Line and 
designated as the Referee's Mark 
2) Position of the Judges 
The position of the 1st Judge shall be marked at a point 0.5m from the comer of 
boundary line #1 and boundary line #2. The position of the 2nd Judge shall be 
marked at a point 0.5m from the comer of boundary line #2 and boundary line #3. 
The position of the 3rd Judge shall be marked at a point 0.5m from the comer of 
boundary line #3 and boundary line #4. The position of the 4th Judge shall be 
marked at a point 0.5m from the comer of boundary line #4 and boundary line #1. 
Page 16 
"Article 13 Scoring and Publication" states: 
2) Valid points scored to the head shall be recorded by each judge using the electronic 
scoring instrument or judges scoring sheet. 
4. In the case of scoring with an electronic scoring instrument or on a judge's scoring 
sheet, valid points shall be those recognized by at least three or more judges. 
* * * 
(Explanation #2) 
Immediately recorded and publicized: A point having been awarded by the judges shall 
be immediately publicized on the scoreboard. 
(Explanation #3) 
Use of trunk protectors not equipped with electronic sensors: All scoring must be done 
according to the judge's own decision. There must be equipment available which is 
capable of immediately conveying the recorded point to the scoreboard. However, when 
electronic publication equipment is not available, the points shall be immediately 
recorded on the judge's scoring sheet and publicized at the end of the round. 
(Explanation #4) 
The use of electronic trunk protectors: Scoring techniques striking the body protector will 
be automatically recorded. Judges will award points resulting from face attacks or scoring 
attacks on areas outside of the scoring targets of the trunk protectors. 
(Guideline for officiating) 
The Judges will abide by the principle of immediate scoring regardless of the scoring 
system. Awarding a point at the end of the round is a violation of this regulation. 
"Article 14 Prohibited Acts and Penalties" states: 
1. Penalties on any prohibited acts shall be declared by the referee. 
"Article 20 Refereeing Officials" states: 
2. Duties 
1) Referee 
(l) The referee shall have control over the match. 
(2) The referee shall declare 
_, winner and loser, points, warnings 
the referees' declarations shall be made when the results are confirmed. 
Page 17 
(3) The referee shall have the right to make decisions independently III 
accordance with the prescribed rules. 
(4) In principle, the center referee shall not award points .... 
(5) In case of a tie or scoreless match, the decision of superiority shall be made 
by all refereeing officials after the end of four (4) rounds .... 
2) Judges 
(1) The judges shall mark the valid points immediately. 
(2) The judges shall state their opinions forthrightly when requested by the 
referee. 
According to the Word Taekwondo Federation's Competition Rules and the May 4, 2010 letter 
from the Secretary General of the Korea Taekwondo Association, referees have control over the 
match, but do "not award points" to the competitors. It is the judges who evaluate the 
competitors, assess points, and ultimately determine the outcome of a match. The responsibility 
of the referee, on the other hand, is to ensure that rules and procedures are being followed and that 
the match is safe and fair. A referee whose primary responsibility is to observe a competition and 
ensure that rules or proper procedures are followed is not judging the work of others in the 
context of this regulatory criterion. In this case, there is no evidence showing that during his 
participation as a referee, the petitioner judged the work of others. Moreover, there is no 
documentary evidence showing the specific event categories refereed by the petitioner and the 
names of the participating athletes. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a "Certificate of Taekwondo Experience" and a "Certificate of 
Teaching Experience" from the President of the Korea Taekwondo Association. The Certificate 
of Taekwondo states that the petitioner coached •••••••••••• 
The Certificate of 
petitioner served as "Head Coach" of the 
•• Ind identifies ten athletes coached by him. The Certificate of Teaching Experience lists the 
petitioner's athletes' names and specifically identifies national competitions in which they placed 
among the top three finishers while under the petitioner's direct tutelage in Korea from 2002 -
2003. The petitioner also submitted a May 4, 2010 letter from the Secretary General of the 
Korea Taekwondo Association identifying and discussing national taekwondo competitions in 
Korea in which petitioner's students received awards (such as the President's Flag Taekwondo 
Championship and the Selection Tournament for Korean National Delegates). The petitioner's 
evidence also includes online material from the Korea Taekwondo Association's website 
confirming the significance of the competitions. 
Page 18 
Head Coach of the Taekwondo teams for Gyeongsangbuk-do (also known as 
Gyeongbuk) province in Korea, states: 
As Head Coach of the province, I select the Head Coaches for the cities of Gyeongbuk. 
Qualifications of selected head coaches for the cities are then forwarded to the respective 
mayor for approval. . .. I ... selected [the petitioner] to coach the male Yeong Cheon 
City Hall Taekwondo Team. 
When [the petitioner] was Head Coach of the Yeong Cheon City male team, there were 
10 members in the team, and all 10 have placed in national competitions! This was an 
outstanding feat! ... All of [the petitioner's] players have won a gold, or silver or bronze 
medal at the Presidential Flag Taekwondo Championships, National Sports Festival, and 
the Selection Tour for National Delegates. These competitions are all national in scope 
and participated by thousands of top Korean athletes. To this day, the Yeong Cheon City 
Taekwondo team has never quite equaled the overall performance achieved by the team 
when [the petitioner] served as Head Coach. 
As Taekwondo Head Coach for Gyeongsangbukdo, I am tremendously proud to have 
selected [the petitioner] to serve as 
The petitioner submitted a May 8, 2010 letter Exective Officer, USA 
Taekwondo, the national governing body of Taekwondo for the United States Olympic 
Committee, stating: "Some of [the petitioner's students have and won at the U.S. 
and Junior 01 including: and 
In support of letter, the petitioner submitted an award certificate from the 2007 
U.S. Open Taekwondo Championships stating that Gold in Sparring 14-17 
Female Black 59.1 - 63.0 kgs (Middle)." The petitioner also submitted two certificates from the 
2005 Junior Olympic Taekwondo Championships for Leah Shipchack in the 14-15 age group 
reflecting that she won gold medals in "World Sparring" and "Elite Sparring," but these awards 
were in the lesser "Red" belt division. The petitioner's evidence included a "Participation 
Certificate" reflecting that participated in the 8-9 age group at the 2005 Junior 
Olympic Taekwondo Championships in the lesser "Red" belt division, but there is no evidence 
showing that he earned a medal by placing in the top three in his competitive category. The 
petitioner also submitted award certi~at the gold in 
Sparring in the 8-9 age group and that _won III in the 12-
13 age group at the 2004 Junior Olympic Taekwondo Championships, but both of their awards 
were in the lesser "Red" belt division. The petitioner's evidence included additional awards 
received by his U.S. students, but these remaining awards were from local or regional 
competitions rather than nationally recognized taekwondo championships. 
Page 19 
The AAO finds that the medals won by the petitioner's students in Korean national competitions 
from 2002 - 2003 and that the gold medal won by his student the 14-17 age 
group "Black" belt division at the 2007 U.S. Open Taekwondo Championships are sufficient to 
demonstrate that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion as a coach. 
Evidence that the alien has peiformed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for the Yeong 
Cheon City Hall Taekwondo Team. As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted a 
"Certificate of Teaching Experience" from the President of the Korea Taekwondo Association 
showing that the petitioner served as ••••••••••••• 
•••••• ~~ identifying the athletes coached by him. The petitioner also 
that the petitioner served as 
The preceding documentatIOn 
indicates that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role as Head Coach for the Yeong 
Cheon City Hall Taekwondo Team, but the evidence submitted by the petitioner is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the team had a distinguished reputation during the petitioner's tenure as its 
coach. 
The petitioner submitted a letter of support former President of the U.S. 
National Collegiate Taekwondo Association and Senior Lecturer, Department of Kinesiology, 
Iowa State University, asserting that the Yeong Cheon City Hall Taekwondo Team "is 
,,'''''JUF., the most celebrated teams in Korea." The petitioner also submitted a letter 
from 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist and operator of World Champion Tae Kwon 
Do in Oregon, stating that the Yeong Cheon ~Taekwondo Team "is one of the most 
prestigious teams in Korea." The letters from~d _owever, do not point to 
specific evidence to support their assertions. The letter of support from Jong Wook Yoon states: 
"There are bigger cities in Gyeongbuk, which have more athletes and therefore more 
opportunities to win in national Korean competitions, but none have topped Yeong Cheon City's 
performance under [the petitioner's] leadership." The record does not include documentary 
evidence to support the preceding claims. For instance, the petitioner failed to submit official 
competitive results (such as comprehensive team rankings or team points comparisons) 
distinguishing the Yeong Cheon City Hall Taekwondo Team's results from those of other 
successful Korean taekwondo teams. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 
1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Further, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
In response to the director's request for evidence of the Yeong Cheon City Hall Taekwondo 
Team's distinguished reputation, the petitioner submitted a printout of Google search results (ten 
entries) for the term "Yeongcheon City Taekwondo Team." Without copies of the full articles 
Page 20 
identified in the Google search, the AAO cannot conclude that the team had a distinguished 
reputation in relation to other city taekwondo teams in Korea. Purther, the Google search results 
identified articles from 2009 and 2010 which fail to demonstrate that the Yeong Cheon City Hall 
Taekwondo Team had a distinguished reputation during the petitioner's tenure as head coach 
from 2002 - 2003. Aside from the petitioner's failure to demonstrate that the Yeong Cheon City 
Hall Taekwondo Team had a distinguished reputation when he coached the team, the record does 
not include evidence documenting the petitioner's leading or critical role for any other 
organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. As previously discussed, section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that 
statutory requirement, the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the submission of 
evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for "organizations or 
establishments" in the plural. Therefore, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting 
documentary evidence showing that the Yeong Cheon City Hall Taekwondo Team had a 
distinguished reputation, which he has not, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
evidence of a leading or critical role for more than one distinguished organization or 
establishment. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Summary 
The AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determina.tion 
The AAO will next conduct 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[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 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." Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in the AAO's discussion of the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (iv) and (viii). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), this decision has already addressed why the awards post-dating the petitioner's 
competitive athletic career do not rise to the level of nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for excellence in the field. There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has 
received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in coaching or 
taekwondo instruction. Regarding the awards received by the petitioner as a taekwondo athlete, 
Page 21 
there is no evidence indicating that the petItIOner has received any awards in national or 
international competition subsequent to the 1990s. The statute and regulations, however, require 
the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been sustained. See 
section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
documentation submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) is not 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as of the petition's March 26, 
2010 filing date. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
as previously discussed, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner holds membership in 
associations that require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the petitioner's field. Regarding the petitioner's "Dan 
Certificate" indicating that he earned his 6th Dan, the AAO cannot conclude that satisfying 
practical testing requirements, theoretical testing requirements, and minimum time and age 
promotion requirements for a Dan ranking are tantamount to outstanding achievements. The 
petitioner has not established that his memberships are indicative of or consistent with sustained 
national acclaim. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), all of the petitioner's submissions were deficient in at least one of the 
regulatory requirements such as not including a date or an author, not being about the petitioner 
or his coaching, or not being accompanied by evidence that they were published in major media. 
Further, the English language translations of the articles submitted by the petitioner do not 
comply with the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, there is no 
evidence indicating that the petitioner has been the primary subject of published material since 
the 1990s. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his 
national or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is not commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim as of the petition's filing date. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the petitioner has not established that serving as a "referee" in taekwondo 
competitions equates to participating as a "judge" of the work of others. Further, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's participation in statewide or regional competitions is 
indicative of national or international acclaim. The petitioner failed to submit evidence 
demonstrating that he judged top taekwondo competitors at the national or international level 
rather than youth or intermediates at the local or regional level. Cj., Matter of Price, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 (USCIS has long held that has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the statutory 
standards for immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability"). The documentation 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that his level of judging is commensurate with 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Moreover, there is no documentary 
evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge or referee subsequent to 2006. The statute 
. , ' 
Page 22 
and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or international 
acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as of the 
petition's filing date. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
the AAO acknowledges that athletes coached by the petitioner have received awards in national 
taekwondo competitions. For example, the petitioner submitted an award certificate from the 
2007 U.S. Open Taekwondo Championships stating that "won Gold in Sparring 
14-17 Female Black 59.1 - 63.0 kgs (Middle)." The petitioner also submitted evidence of 
awards received by his U.S. students at the Junior Olympic Taekwondo Championships in the 
lesser "Red" belt division. Awards won by the petitioner's athletes in junior, intermediate, or 
age-restricted competitive categories do not establish that his coaching places him among "that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary 
ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954; 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. Likewise, it does not follow 
that a taekwondo coach who has had success coaching athletes in age-group, Junior Olympic, or 
Red belt level competition should necessarily qualify for approval of an extraordinary ability 
employment-based immigrant visa petition. The AAO notes that in Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 
153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not 
a comparison of_bility with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; 
but rather, _ ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This 
interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, 
No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
The court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of 
individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." Further, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that athletes under the petitioner's principal tutelage have 
received national or international awards in top taekwondo competitions subsequent to February 
2007. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national 
or international acclaim as a coach has been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim as of the petition's March 26,2010 filing date. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner has not established that he has performed in a leading or critical 
Page 23 
role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. Moreover, the AAO notes that the 
petitioner's role as head coach for the Yeong Cheon City Hall Taekwondo Team ended when he 
came to the United States in November 2003. There is no documentary evidence establishing 
that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for an organization with a 
distinguished reputation since his arrival in the United States. The statute and regulations, 
however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or international acclaim as a coach 
has been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as of the 
petition's filing date. 
The petitioner's evidence included several letters of support discussing the petitioner's 
achievements as taekwondo competitor, instructor, and coach. The content of many of these 
letters . has already been discussed under the pertinent regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). While the recommendation letters submitted by the petitioner provide important 
details about his experience and activities, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how 
they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written 
by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of 
less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a taekwondo coach 
or instructor who has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
The AAO notes that many of the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive than 
those of the petitioner. For example, Sun H. Kim, who holds the title of Grandmaster, states: 
I am the 
* * * 
I hold 8th Dan degree Black belts in Taekwondo, Hapkido, Yudo and Kumdo, and served as 
a Taekwondo and Hand-to-Hand Combat Instructor with the Korean Special Forces. I am 
also currently serving as 
Page 24 
. -~ .. - - - - - - - states that he 
coached "the u.s. team that went to the World Junior Taekwondo Olympics" and that he was "the 
fonner Head Coach of the Mexico Taekwondo Team." 
states: 
I was 
under the USA Taekwondo. . .. I am the three-time recipient of the NCT A Coach of the 
Year award, and coached the United States National Taekwondo Team in numerous 
international tournaments, including the Pan-American Championships and Goodwill 
Games with Mexico and Ukraine. 
is the owner of and holds the title of Grand 
Master. states that he is holds an 
8th Dan degree black belt, and received the "Developmental Coach of the Year" award from the 
U.S. Olympic Committee. 
states: 
I am one of the few 9th Dan degree black belts (Certified by Kukkiwon, World Taekwondo 
Headquarters). During my tenure as President of the United States Taekwondo Union (now 
known as USA Taekwondo), I was instrumental in securing for Taekwondo the official 
sanction and elevating Taekwondo to Class A Status of the United States Olympic 
Committee and supporting of the International Olympic Committee. I have been ... Head 
of U.S. Team for numerous international events. My current positions include National 
President, United States Taekwondo Instructor's Union (1991-present) and President and 
Tournament Chainnan of the Annual U.S. Cup Taekwondo Tournament. Also I have been 
a Member of Team Service Committee of the United States Olympic Committee. 
states that he is a 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist, that he was on the Korean 
National Team for a decade, that he was Team Captain of the National Team at the Sydney 
Olympic Games, and that his name 
states that he is a 7 th dan Taekwondo Master and 
He further states: 
I have won numerous Taekwondo championships in Korea and also took the World 
Games Championship Title in Taekwondo in 1981. I have been twice awarded with the 
Medal of Honor by the President of Korea for my contributions to Taekwondo. I trained 
players at Korean National University from 1987 to 1990. In 1990, I moved to the U.S. 
and opened my first Taekwondo school in Solon, OH. In 2000, I served as the U.S. 
National Team Coach at the 12th Pan American Taekwondo Championships held on 
December 7-9, 2000 in Oranjestad, Aruba. I was also the U.S. National Collegiate Head 
Page 25 
Coach for 2002. In 2008, I served as the American Taekwondo United (ATU) National 
Team Coach. At present, I am the ATU Secretary General. 
states: 
In 2000, I was appointed coach of the Korean Junior Taekwondo National Team. As the 
players I coach continue to do extremely well under my guidance, I was approached by 
the Philippine Taekwondo Association to serve as head coach and mentor of their 
national team. I gladly accepted the ition and led the National Taekwondo 
Team from 2002-2004. I served 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is above the 
level he has attained. The petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing 
were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a competitive athlete or a 
taekwondo coach, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
The submitted evidence is not indicative of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The conclusion the AAO 
reaches by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Ultimately, the evidence 
in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
C Prior 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Status 
The AAO notes that the alien is the beneficiary of approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions for 
an alien of extraordinary. These prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an 
immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased standard. Each case must decided 
on a case-by-case basis upon review of the evidence of record. It must be noted that many 1-140 
immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q 
Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 
48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 
immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. 
Appx. 556 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an 
extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of the alien's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 191&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Page 26 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a 
nonimmigrant petition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 
2000 WL 282785, *1, *3 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 
(2001). 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)( 1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.