dismissed EB-1A Case: Boxing

identifjting data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwmted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PrnC copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Qffice of Adminisrrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 - 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
I LIN 08 21 I 51239 Date: APR 2 8 2010 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. # 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
h4-D (!~dklok f Perry Rhew 
chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on June 25, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a boxer. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his 
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 "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. $5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 criteria that call for the 
submission of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). Through the 
submission of required initial evidence, at least three of the ten regulatory criteria must be 
satisfied for an alien to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3). 
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 
Page 3 
(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" tong., 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. Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 criteria. 
(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 in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(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. Kuzurian v. US<%% 2010 WL 725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 
201 0). 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. $5 204.5(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. 
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 MO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satis@ the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at "6 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 53(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at "3. 
Thus, Kuzarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if 
qualifling under three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. In 
reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kuzarian. As the AAO 
maintains de novo review, the AAO 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 Kuzurian 
court. See Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals 
on a de novo basis). 
11. Analysis 
1 
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. 5 204,5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on July 21, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a boxer. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the  alien!^ receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognizedprizes or awards.for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on the following documentation: 
Diploma for third prize at the international boxing tournament dedicated to 
the memory of M-S. I. Umakhanov; 
Participation at the Boxing CISM Klitschko Tournament as a member of 
an official mission Ukraine from April 15 - 2 1, 2007; 
Diploma for second place at the International Boxing Tournament from 
December 20 - 23,2001 ; 
Diploma for second place from the Great Silk Road Connective 
Continents at the 1" International Boxing Tournament from March 27 - 
3 1,2007; 
Diploma for second place at the XXXV Centure de Aurinternational 
Tournament from June 7 - 10,2006; 
Diploma for third place at the 2"d Boxing International Tournament 
dedicated to the memory of Edward Aristakesyan on September 5,2007; 
Diploma for first place at the National Boxing Championship of Georgia 
from November 8 - 1 1,2006; 
Diploma for first place at the Boxing Championship of Georgia from May 
11 - 15,2005; 
Diploma for first place at the Boxing Championship of Georgia in 2007; 
Diploma for first place from the City Service of Georgia of Tbilisi 
Municipality on January 20,2006; 
Diploma for first place at the Sport Club Named After Giorgi Kandelaki 
on an unspecified date; 
Diploma for first place for a competition among youngsters in Boxing of 
Georgia for the region Kuemo Kartli from July 1 1 - 1 5, 200 1 ; 
Diploma for first place in open competition in boxing among sportsmen 
(born on 1983-1984) at the Physical Training and Tourism Outdoor 
School from September 25 - 27,2001; and 
Diploma for second place at the Seventh Junior Boxing International 
Tournament Brandenburg Cup in 2002. 
On appeal, the petitioner stated: 
* The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
All above mentioned tournament are A-class international tournaments. The 
service decided that they [do not] have proof of [the] importance of above- 
mentioned tournaments. Does the term "International" mean[s] something for 
service officer or does the term "A-class" means something for service officer. 
My friend - Olympic champion told me that when he submitted the petition for 
extraordinary abilities category, the Service required the explanation and a proof 
of an importance of The Olympic Games. 
We are not persuaded by the petitioner's statements. The plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) 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. However, an award with "International," "National," or "Continental" in the title does 
not automatically elevate the award to an internationally or nationally recognized award. 
Without documentary evidence regarding the actual competitions themselves, such as the level 
of those who participated or evidence of the selection criteria, we cannot conclude based on the 
name of the competition alone, that the competition or tournament is national or international, 
and therefore that its awards are recognized beyond the awarding entities as a national or 
international award. In this case, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation regarding any 
of these tournaments to warrant a favorable finding under the plain language of the regulation for 
this criterion. We note that some of the awards appear to be from the local or regional level such 
as items 10 - 13. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the .field for which 
classlJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines orjelds. 
The director indicated in his decision that the record did not show that the petitioner was a 
member of any associations requiring outstanding achievements of its members. However, on 
appeal, the petitioner stated: 
I submitted the reference from The Boxing Federation of Georgia that I am the 
member of National Team in Boxing. I believe and many immigration experts 
believes so, that for sportsmen the membership of National team is that "which 
require outstanding achievements of their members." 
In response to the director's request for evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8), the 
petitioner claimed: 
I am the member of Georgia's National team in boxing. As a member of 
Georgia's National team I took [sic] participate.[d] in World Championship 2007 
Chicago, U.S.A. Unfortunately, at this tournament my result was not so much 
successful, but I hope at next world championship I will become a champion. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated July 2, 2008, from - 
of Boxing Club in Educational Field, and of Boxing Club, 
who stated that "[oln 2008y [the petitioner] has been entered the member of team of Georgia." 
Besides the petitioner's own assertions, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation 
establishing that he competed at the 2007 World Championship in Chicago, Illinois as a member 
of the Georgia National team. 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Cruji of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
establishes the petitioner's membership with the Georgia National team. The letter is vague and 
generally indicates that the petitioner is a "member of [the] team of Georgia" and does not reflect 
that the petitioner is a member of the Georgia National team. Furthermore, the letter fails to 
reflect that or is in a position to confirm the petitioner's 
membership with the Georgia National team. The letter indicates that is the 
"director of boxing club in educational field" and is the "director of boxing 
club." We would be more persuaded, for example, by a letter from the President of the Georgia 
National or Olympic team than a letter from a "boxing club." 
Finally, even if we would accept the letter as evidence of the petitioner's membership with the 
Georgia National team, which we clearly do not we note that the petitioner's assertion 
contradicts the letter from and The record is unclear how the 
petitioner competed at the 2007 World Championship as part of the Georgia National team when 
the letter indicates that the petitioner became a member of the team in 2008. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires documentation of the 
alien's membership. In this case, for the reasons stated above, the petitioner failed to submit 
sufficient documentation establishing that he is a member of the Georgia National team or any 
other association that requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in prqfessional or mujor trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the  alien'.^ work in the .field for which 
classlJication is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on the following documentation: 
At the onset, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) requires that "[alny 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." 
Instead of submitting full English language translations of both articles, the petitioner submitted 
extract translations. In addition, 8 C.F.R. Ij 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[s]uch evidence shall include 
the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation." However, the petitioner 
failed to provide the author for item 2. 
Nonetheless, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the 
published material be "about" the petitioner relating to his work. 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 quali~ 
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.3 
Regarding item 1, it appears that the petitioner only submitted the extract translation that related 
to the author's interview portion of the petitioner. As such, we are unable to determine if the 
article is primarily about the petitioner. Regarding item 2, it appears from the extract translation 
that the article is primarily about the Championship of Georgia in which the petitioner is 
mentioned one time as winning first place among boys in the weight class of 48 kg. As the 
petitioner failed to establish that the two articles are aboul him, the petitioner failed to establish 
that he meets the plain language of the regulation for this criterion. 
In addition, the petitioner claimed on appeal: 
I submitted the paper from major Georgian sporting daily newspaper "Lelo." 
This newspaper is nationally distributed and was established more than 90 years 
ago. Maybe there is [a] problem of [the] number of daily distributed copies. I 
dare to mention that Georgia is [a] small country with [a] population little above 
of [sic] 5 million. The average number of daily distributed copies is around 
60,000. It means that approximately 1 copy is distributed on 80 Georgian 
citizens. The same number for nationally distributed New York Times is 1 copy 
on 300 American citizens. 
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 9 
However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation regarding any of his assertions 
above. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The 
petitioner failed to establish that Lelo or Azoti of Rustavia is a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the,field. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on the submission of several 
recommendation letters from the following individuals: 
A review of the recommendation letters indicate that they highly praise the petitioner for his 
work ethic, dedication, and accomplishments as a boxer. For example, stated 
that "[the petitioner] is very devoted and hard working young boxer, who will use all effort and 
time to succeed. His manners, positive character and sense of responsibility distinguish him 
among many others." In addition. stated that "[the petitioner] is very noble, 
hardworking, energetic and kind young." Further, stated that "[the petitioner] 
is friendly, warm, kind, calm and courteous young." 
While the letters highly praise the petitioner for his character and dedication, they fail to 
establish that he has made contributions of major significance in his field. In evaluating the 
reference letters, they do not specifically identify what he originally contributed to boxing, and 
how those original contributions have influenced his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is 
not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Without extensive documentation showing 
that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential or widely accepted throughout his field, 
or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the Jield at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
A review of the director's decision reflects that he found that this criterion applied to visual 
artists and not boxers. On appeal, the petitioner stated: 
This sentence is very disputed. First I believe that for sportsman the 
participat[ion] in the tournaments is Evidence of the display of the alien's work in 
the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Let me see this criteria's another side. There are 10 criteria for persons with 
extraordinary abilities. So it comes out that if the person is artist her or she have 
to satisfied to at least three of them. But for sportsman there are just 8 criteria (all 
except criteria vi and vii). It is very discriminatory regard to sportsman. 
We agree with the finding of the director for this criterion. The plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vii) indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors and 
painters) rather than for boxers such as the petitioner. In athletics, competing in tournaments and 
championships and most competitions take place in a public forum. The ten criteria in the 
regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every 
occupation. The petitioner's participation in competitions and tournaments has previously been 
addressed under the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). The petitioner failed to 
establish that his participation at tournaments is evidence of his work at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role.for organizations 
or establishments that have a dislinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner stated: 
I dare to mention that I am [a] member of [the] Georgian national team. In [any] 
given moment there are around 10,000 acti[ve] member-boxer[s] of the Georgian 
Boxing Federation. Just 18-20 of them are the [sic] member[s] of the National 
team. Besides this in many submitted references letters many leading 
professionals and expert consider me as one of best boxerls] nationally. So I have 
a leading role for [the] whole Georgian Boxing. 
The petitioner's alleged membership with the Georgia National team has previously been 
addressed under the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Even if we found that 
the petitioner had established his membership on the national team, which we do not, such a 
finding would not also establish his satisfaction of this criterion. The regulatory criteria under 8 
C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist, 
USCIS clearly does not view these criteria as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to 
meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an 
alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. 
Notwithstanding, we are not persuaded by the petitioner's claim that membership on a national 
team also demonstrates that he has performed in a leading or critical role for that team. We do 
not find that merely being a member on a team or being considered one of the best boxers in the 
country by one's peers is sufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion. Instead, we would be 
more persuaded, for example, by evidence that demonstrates the petitioner's roles on a team 
compared to other team members, and how those roles contributed to the success of the team as a 
whole. In this case, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish his position 
or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" pursuant to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Regardless, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation regarding his assertion that there 
are 10,000 active boxers in Georgia and only "18-20 of them" are members of the national team. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 
A review of the director's decision reflects that he concluded that the evidence submitted by the 
petitioner failed to establish that he commanded a salary significantly higher than other boxers. 
We note that the petitioner failed to address this criterion on appeal. 
A review of the rec petitioner submitted a previously mentioned letter from 
and who stated that "[tlhe club was paying to [the petitioner] 
500 (Five hundred) USA dollar[s] every month." The petitioner failed to submit any other 
documentation regarding his salary or remuneration. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence showing 
that he has commanded a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no 
basis for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in relation to others in 
his field. There is no evidence establishing that the petitioner has earned a level of compensation 
that places him among the highest paid boxers in his field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must 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.F.R. 5 204.5(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." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 201 0 WL 7253 17 at "3. The 
petitioner failed to establish eligibility for any of the criteria, in which three are required under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(11)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies in the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Notwithstanding the fact the petitioner failed to submit documentation establishing that his 
awards were nationally or internationally recognized pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i), the petitioner submitted documentation reflecting a moderate degree of success 
in boxing tournaments. However, the petitioner has not demonstrated a "career of acclaimed 
work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101 -723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). We 
note that some of the petitioner's awards were won in tournaments reserved for "youths" and 
'tjuniors." We are not persuaded that the petitioner's competition in age restricted tournaments 
demonstrates that the petitioner "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" 
standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N I>ec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 
60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that a boxer, such as the petitioner, should necessarily 
qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa compared to a boxer at the 
professional level. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 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." 
In addition, even though the petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), we also cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit 
"extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
4 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of 
Racine, 1995 WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. 111. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but 
rather, Racine's 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. 6 204.5(h)(2), and the 
discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the 
court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) is 
reasonable. 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for 
aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991). Even if we would find that the articles submitted by the petitioner meet 
this regulatory criterion, which we clearly do not, we do not find two articles are sufficient to 
establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive 
classification. 
Finally, while the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for original contributions of major 
significance pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), the petitioner claims 
eligibility for this criterion based entirely on recommendation letters, which are not sufficient to 
meet this highly restrictive classification. We note that the letters were all from individuals who 
have worked or interacted with the petitioner. While such letters can provide important details 
about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national or 
international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the alien's immediate 
acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 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 of support from the 
petitioner's personal contacts in 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. Thus, 
the content of the writers' 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 any immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence that one would expect of an individual who has sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the field. 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 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 the field of endeavor. 
111. 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)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) 
("On appear from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see 
also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de 
novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g.. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 
997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
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.