dismissed EB-1A Case: Boxing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 14,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professional boxer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits documentation and a brief, stating that he meets at least three 
criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified immigrants with extraordinary 
ability 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of F-P-
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media , and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D .C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a professional boxer who has mainly competed in matches in Italy and the United 
States. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the Petition, the Director found that that the Petitioner met 
only the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the criteria pertammg to membership under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and leading or 
critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record 
of proceedings, and it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion . The record reflects that the 
Petitioner won the 
2 
.
Matter of F-P-
and the thereby 
showing that he has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field. Accordingly, we concur with the Director that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class~fication is 
sought, which require outsta~ding achievements of their members. as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
his eligibility for this criterion based on memberships with the 
and the 
Regarding the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented his membership in 
the association. The record contains a letter from a professional boxer, who states 
that the Petitioner is a member of the as well as the and however, 
did not indicate how he is aware of the Petitioner's membership with In addition, the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence from the confirming his membership status. Moreover, 
other evidence in the record does not identify the Petitioner as being a part of or competing in 
sanctioned matches compared to his media coverage mentioning his affiliation with the 
and Similarly, the Petitioner submitted a letter from boxing 
trainer, manager, and adviser, who discussed the Petitioner's ranking and upcoming title bout in the 
without any reference to his involvement with the Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he is a member of the 
Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner argues that offers a separate level of membership for 
active boxer members, and that it is membership in this category that requires outstanding 
achievement. According to of bylaws, it maintains a ratings committee who 
compiles and publishes ratings for 40 boxers in each division to determine eligible contenders to 
participate in elimination bouts and to challenge for championships. Moreover, in order to be 
eligible to appear in ratings, a boxer should: 1) 
2) ' 3) ' 
or 4) · 
The Petitioner did not specify, nor does the record reflect, what ratings, if any, he received. 
Regardless, although the bylaws indicate committee members "shall consist of members of absolute 
integrity, who shall be subject to the Code of Ethics, the Petitioner has not established that 
they are comprised of "recognized national or international experts" as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). For these reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that membership or a 
rating with the meets this criterion. 
As it pertains to the and the Petitioner has shown his association with them. Regarding 
the Petitioner provided the rules and bylaws that are almost identical to the bylaws of 
1 Although states that the Petitioner has a top I 0 ranking in the the Petitioner did not provide any 
3 
.
Matter of F-P-
Further, the also indicates that the ratings committee "consists of members of absolute 
integrity, who shall be subject to the Code of Ethics." Again, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the ratings committee is made up of"recognized national or international experts ." 
As it relates to the the Petitioner subm,itted two documents that describe the history of the 
and lists the current world title holders. The evidence, however, does not indicate the membership 
criteria. The Petitioner did not offer the bylaws or other evidence showing that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that membership with and satisfies this 
criterion. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that he is a member of the The record, however, does not 
support his assertion. In his cover letter at the initial filing of the petition , the Petitioner claimed that 
"[ s ]ince 2004, [he] has been a member of the distinguished The 
record includes a letter from team manager, who stated that he has attended 
several sessions of American technical-tactical training held by the Petitioner in 2011 and 2012 in 
preparation for the 2012 in In addition, indicates that he 
collaborated with the Petitioner to select athletes for the Because the letter lacks specific 
information, it does not establish that the Petitioner was in fact a member of the as a boxer or 
in some other capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner submits screenshots about the 
the and the Although the 
screenshots contain background information, they do not indicate that the Petitioner was a member 
of the national team. Furthermore, the Petitioner offers another letter from in 
which he provides an overall history and organization of the team but does not discuss the Petitioner. 
Finally, the record, including the Petitioner's recommendation letters and media coverage, does not 
reference the Petitioner's membership to this team. Accordingly , the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated that he has been a member of the 
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 classffication 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). 
The record contains an article, which includes the title, date, and author, from 
that constitutes published material about the Petitioner relating to his boxing 
match in New York. In addition, the Petitioner provided evidence showing that 
is one of the top boxing websites, thereby demonstrating that the website 
qualifies as a major medium. Therefore, the Petitioner has established 
that he satisfies this criterion. 
corroborating evidence to show his actual ranking. 
4 
.
Matter of F-P-
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner maintains that his roles with the and meet this criterion. At the 
outset, the Petitioner provided documentation evidencing the distinguished reputations of both 
organizations. In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in 
which a petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. 
Regarding as discussed above, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner was a 
member of the national team. While letter attests that the Petitioner assisted in 
training him for the and helped him select athletes for the 2013/2014 team, it does 
not contain specific information, such as wh~ther the Petitioner performed in an official capacity or 
simply provided an informal opinion. Further, the Petitioner has not established that his role of 
helping choose athletes for the team constituted a leading role for the or that 
he was responsible for the success of the national team to an extent that his role was critical. For 
these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his role with the meets this criterion. 
As it relates to the Petitioner offered a letter from owner, who 
claimed that the Petitioner is "a big inspiration to the younger boxers at 'and "was 
instrumental in bringing the [to] m 
2015," which was attended by celebrities. Regarding the boxing awards, the Petitioner 
presented a screenshot from announcing the date and time of the 
awards. In addition, the Petitioner provided a recommendation letter from 
. Current who stated that she has trained with the Petitioner at the gym. 
Moreover, the Petitioner submitted the previously discussed letter from who indicated 
that the Petitioner's attitude is an asset to the gym by providing a good role model to other boxers at 
the gym. The Petitioner's documentation, however, does not reflect that the Petitioner performed in 
a leading or critical role for the gym. Although the Petitioner's training and boxing at the gym may 
serve as an inspiration to other boxers, it does not represent a leading role. The Petitioner did not, 
for example, show how his position as a boxer fits into the hierarchy of the organization to show that 
it is a leading role. Further, the Petitioner has not shown how his training or boxing has led to the 
success or standing of the gym. While stated that the awards ceremony enabled the 
gym "to further spread the virtues of boxing training" and brought "a large group of celebrities to the 
event," he did not provide details explaining how the Petitioner contributed, how he was 
"instrumental" to organizing the awards ceremony, or how bringing celebrities to an awards 
ceremony led to the success or standing of the gym. for example, did not claim that 
attendance or membership increased at the gym as a result of the Petitioner's work on the awards 
ceremony. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that his role with 
meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
5 
Matter of F-P-
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
C. P-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note the record of proceedings reflects that the Petitioner received P-1 nonimmigrant status. 
Although 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 
which is adjudicated based on a different standard- statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form 
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., 724 F. Supp. at 1103. Furthermore, our 
authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, 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 an individual, we are not bound to 
follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic 
Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), ajf'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), 
cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of F-P-, ID# 429644 (AAO July 14, 2017) 
6