dismissed EB-1A Case: Bridge

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-E-L-T-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 13,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a competitive bridge player, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(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 intemational 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 two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, stating that he satisfies at least three criteria. He further 
maintains that he has established his eligibility for the classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business. or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or intemational 
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 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
.
Matter of L-E-L-T-
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. Alternatively, 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) . In addition. if a petitioner 
demonstrates that the listed criteria do not readily apply to his or her occupation, then he or she may 
submit comparable evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0).
1 
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."' Maffer of 
Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 3 76 (AAO 20 I 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a competitive bridge player, has competed in tournaments throughout the world. 
Because he has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, to meet the initial evidence requirements , he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition , the Director found that the Petitioner met two 
criteria: receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) and participation as a judge under 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3 )(iv). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the membership in associations criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and conclude that it 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
Documentation (~f the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internathmally recognized priz es or 
awardsfor excellence in the field q{endeavor . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record contains evidence that the Petitioner won awards in national bridge competitions 
organized by the ~ including tirst-place titles in the 
in 2009 2012 and 2014 
1 This case discusses 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); Riial v. USC!S, 772 F. Supp . 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash . 2011). 
2 The Petitioner claims that this organization is ''the premier and sole bridge organi zation in Venezuela , with over 300 
active members. " 
2 
.
Matter of L-E-L-T-
According to the president of the the is one of the 
"most prestigious bridge events in the country." Similarly. a bridge player who 
had achieved the first place position in Venezuela's historical ranking, indicates that the 
"is the most important competition of teams in the country.'' The 
record also includes materials from news outlets 
confirming the 
as "one of the most important [events] in the calendar. " Accordingly, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion , and we agree with that finding. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the fle/dfor which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements 
o.ltheir members, asjud,_e;ed by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's membership in the and the 
did not satisfy this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner does not challenge the 
Director's finding, and acknowledges that the does not require outstanding achievements of its 
members. 3 Instead , he maintains that his membership in youth teams that represented his country at 
several international bridge competitions and tournaments constitutes "comparable evidence'' of his 
membership in an association that requires outstanding achievement of its members. S'ee 8 C.F.R. ~ 
204.5(h)( 4). 
The Petitioner has not shown that being on youth bridge teams that competed in international 
competitions meets this criterion. He asserts that he was a member of the ' 
from 2007 to 2013. According to the Petitioner , candidates for the team had to participate "in 
several trials directed by the academic director and coach of the team," which included ( 1) weekly 
online exercises ; (2) weekly classes; (3) tournaments endorsed by the and (4) weekly online 
tournaments. He confirms that team members were selected "based on the results of each player's 
performance during the trials and only the six (6) players with the best scores [were] pre-selected to 
the .... " He maintains that he was selected to various youth teams because he 
achieved one ofthe top six scores during each respective trial. 
Although the evidence indicates that the Petitioner scored well in the trials. which he claims were 
"rigorous," the record does not demonstrate that placing in the top six in these trials constitutes 
"outstanding achievements," as required under the criterion . Specifically, the record lacks 
information on the caliber or the number of players who participated in these trials. Without 
additional corroboration such as the popularity of or the general interest of bridge players in these 
events, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his placement constitutes "outstanding achievements.' ' 
Moreover, as discussed in the Director's decision, the Petitioner has offered insufficient evidence 
demonstrating that the individuals who selected him to be one of the youth team members are 
"recognized national or international expetis in their disciplines or fields," as required under the 
3 The Petitioner has not submitted documentation regarding the membership requirements for the 
.
Matter of L-E-L-T-
criterion. The Petitioner claims on appeal that the "academic director and coach of the team .. 
directed the trials, but does not identify the individuals ultimately responsible for selecting the team 
members or discuss their qualifications. More importantly, it appears that selection to the team did 
not involve the actual judging of achievements by recognized national or international experts, but 
instead was based on simple metrics (i.e., achieving one of the top six scores). The record, as it 
stands, contains insufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner's membership in youth teams 
satisfies this criterion. 
Finally, the Petitioner has not shown that he may submit comparable evidence. Under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 4), he may otTer comparable evidence if he demonstrates that the criterion does "not 
readily apply to [his] occupation." It appears that the membership in an association criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) does apply to his occupation as a bridge player. Specifically, many bridge 
players in Venezuela are members of the While membership in the does not satisfy the 
criterion, he has not illustrated that the criterion does not readily apply to his occupation. 
Regardless , submission of comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) is not a lesser standard 
under which a petitioner may demonstrate eligibility with evidence that does not satisfy the plain 
language of the criterion. Rather, the Petitioner must present comparable evidence equally 
demonstrative of extraordinary ability as the regulatory criteria. Here, he has not established that his 
youth teams required outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. Accordingly, his selection to these teams that 
competed internationally does not meet the membership in an association criterion or constitutes 
comparable evidence that satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation , either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the work(?( 
others in the same or an alliedfield ofspec(ficationfor which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner served on the Appellate Committee for the According to 
people who are on this committee "analyze, evaluate, judge, and sanction any 
controversial bid or move by bridge competitors" in organized events. While this evidence 
confirms that the Petitioner is qualified to be a judge , the record lacks sufficient documents 
demonstrating that he had actually participated as a judge. Specifically , he has not otlered materials 
illustrating that he analyzed , evaluated , judged , or sanctioned any bids or moves. Without 
additional 
corroboration , the record does not support the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied 
this criterion. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we need not fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits 
determination . Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the 
4 
Matter of L-E-L- T-
aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the level of 
expertise required for the classification sought. 4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofL-E-L-T-, 10# 667816 (AAO Nov. 13, 2017) 
4 On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(iii) of the Act. We will not consider this issue as he has not demonstrated his 
extraordinary ability in the athletics. 
5