dismissed EB-1A Case: Chess

bg data deleted to 
pwcmt clearly unwarrantet 
invasion of pmsnal priv ac 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofjce of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 08 070 50416 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. fj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $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. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Vrry Rhew 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability as a chess player and coach. The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as 
an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to 
demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of 
the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability based on his 
international master title and through his fulfillment of at least three of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). 
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 
(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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). The petitioner submitted a certificate from the World Chess Federation (FIDE) 
stating that he "obtained the title of International Master in the year 2000." On appeal, counsel 
argues that the petitioner's "title of International Master" is a major, internationally recognized 
award. This title, however, is attained through "specific results in specific Championship events" or 
through "achieving a rating" as specified in the regulations of the FIDE  andb book.' For example, FIDE 
may confer the International Master designation on a player based on his "achieving norms in 
internationally rated tournaments" rather than his actually winning those t~umaments.~ As the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) clearly defines a one-time achievement as a major, 
internationally recognized award, we cannot conclude that attaining an International Master ranking 
meets the requirements of the regulation. Further, we cannot ignore documentation submitted by the 
petitioner demonstrating the existence of the higher title of "Grandmaster." A Grandmaster is the 
highest ranking conferred by FIDE upon chess players.3 Accordingly, the Grandmaster title, rather than 
the International Master designation, represents a ranking at the very top of the petitioner's field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, more than one thousand players hold FIDE's 
Grandmaster designation and more than two thousand players hold its International Master designation 
at any given time.4 The petitioner also submitted documentation fiom Wikipedia, an online 
encyclopedia, stating: "An International Master is usually in the top 0.25% of all tournament players at 
the time he or she receives the title. The July 2005 FIDE rating list records over 2500 players holding 
the IM title." It has not been established that the phrase "all tournament players" excludes youth, 
novice, and casual chess tournament players. 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 Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Cornmr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Thus, we cannot conclude that a 
' See http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=57&view=article, accessed on October 19, 2009, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
See http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=58&view=article, accessed on October 19, 2009, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
3 
 The United States Chess Federation (USCF) defines a Grandmaster as "The most distinguished title in chess, awarded 
by FIDE. A grandmaster is usually rated between 2500 up to 2851." The USCF defines an International Master as "the 
ranking just below Grandmaster, usually rated between 2400 and 2500, and also awarded by FIDE." See 
htt~://main.uschess.org/content/view/7327, accessed on October 19, 2009, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
4 
 See htt~://ratin~s.fide.com/to~fed.~html, accessed on October 19,2009, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
5 
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. Ill. 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 
statistical universe including youth, novice, and casual chess tournament players is an appropriate basis 
for comparison. Nevertheless, regarding information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about 
the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.6 See Lamilem Badasa v. 
Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8"' Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we will not assign weight to 
information for which Wikipedia is the only cited source. 
Given Congress' restriction of this category to aliens with sustained national or international acclaim, 
the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one-time achievement must be interpreted very 
narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized 
awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 
WL 200418 at "6739. Given that the House Report specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an 
example of a one-time achievement, examples of one-time awards which enjoy major, international 
recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant for athletics) an 
Olympic Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time 
achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
 The 
selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in major media 
internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large, and 
includes a large cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a 
one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by 
Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the alien's field as 
one of the top awards in that field. In this instance, while the petitioner's International Master 
designation demonstrates his attainment of an advanced FIDE chess rating (below that of 
Grandmaster), it does not constitute his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. 
Barring the alien's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
fj 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. 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GURANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative 
encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource 
of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. 
Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required 
to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of 
the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or 
altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http:llen.wikipedia.or~/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on October 19, 2009, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 
the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
 A petitioner, 
however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply 
relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets 
a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not 
be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).~ 
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 a May 1, 2004 letter from 
-ongolian Chess Federation, stating: 
[The petitioner's] biggest ever achievements as chess sportsman are as following: 
7 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits tournament results from the 6th world University Championships 
(2000) in Varna reflecting that his Mongolian team placed 3rd in the team competition (the petitioner 
placed 9' in the men's individual competition). With regard to the petitioner's team bronze medal 
from the World University Championships, it has not been established that receiving an award in a 
competition limited to university students is an indication that the petitioner "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). As 
discussed, 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 Dec. at 953, 954; 56 
Fed. Reg. at 60899. Likewise, it does not follow that a chess player who has had success in a team 
competition limited to university students should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability 
employment-based immigrant visa. 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." The petitioner also submits results from the 
"1 loth Scottish Chess Championships incorporating the Edinburgh Congress" listing the petitioner 
among multiple lSt place "Edinburgh Chess Congress 2003 Prize Winners." The record does not 
include supporting evidence demonstrating the significance and magnitude of the competitive 
category won by the petitioner at Edinburgh Chess Congress so as to demonstrate that his prize was 
nationally or internationally recognized. A competition may be open to participants from throughout 
a particular country or region, but this factor alone is not adequate to establish that an award or prize 
is "nationally or internationally recognized."* The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the 
level of recognition and achievement associated with his Edinburgh Chess Congress prize. A 
victory in an event category with a limited pool of entrants or talent is not evidence of national or 
international recognition. 
Aside from the results from the 2000 World University Championships and the 2003 Edinburgh 
Chess Congress, the record does not include evidence showing that the petitioner received "prizes or 
- - - 
awards" at the remaining tournaments and championships specified in 
 ~a; 1,2004 
letter. 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. 158, 165 (Comm. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A 
petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(l). 
The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(2 
 with regard to the competitive achievements cited in the May 
1, 2004 letter from 
 there is no evidence demonstrating the significance of the 
preceding competitions or the petitioner's awards. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5@)(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. In 
this case, there is no evidence establishing that the petitioner's awards had a significant level of 
recognition beyond the context of the events where they were presented, or that they are 
commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. Finally, even if the petitioner were to demonstrate that his competitive achievements from 
2003 and earlier were sufficient to meet this criterion, there is no evidence demonstrating that he is 
8 
 The record indicates that the petitioner was residing in Newcastle, United Kingdom at that time. 
Page 7 
the recipient of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award in chess during the four years 
preceding the petition's January 16, 2008 filing date. Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
that his national or international acclaim as a chess player has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The preceding 
evidence is not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim as of the date of filing of 
this petition and, thus, is insufficient to meet this criterion without additional evidence under this 
criterion or other criteria documenting the petitioner's more recent acclaim as a chess player or 
coach. 
Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by players coached primarily by the 
petitioner may also be considered for this criterion. On appeal, counsel states: "[The petitioner] 
himself has several success [sic] students including ic], who is Mongolia's 
top female chess player and a member of Mongolia's National and Olympic chess team." The 
Ltitioner's a ellate submission includes information printed from ~ik&dia about - 
Put this material does not identify the petitioner as her chess coach. Nevertheless, as 
discussed previously, there are no assurances about the reliability of content from Wikipedia, an 
open, user-edited internet site. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (gth Cir. 
2008). Accordingly, we will not assign weight to information for which Wikipedia is the on1 cited 
no persuasive evidence to support counsel's assertion that h 
chess student. For instance, the record does not include a letter 
ndicating that the petitioner was her chess coach and the dates of her 
tutelage. Further, there is no evidence showing that 
 has received nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards in chess competition. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503, 506 (BIA 1980). In this case, the record does not include evidence demonstrating that players 
coached primarily by the petitioner have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards in chess competition. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner initially submitted an identification card indicating that he is a "regular" member of 
the U.S. Chess Federation, but there is no evidence (such as membership bylaws) showing the 
admission reauirements for this organization. The ~etitioner also submitted a May 1, 2004 letter 
" . , 
from stating that he "was employed at the chess club 'Monchess' . . . as a trainer and 
a leading player." The record also includes documentation showing that the petitioner organized the 
~onshat& Chess Club in Los Angeles. There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's 
work for the preceding chess clubs equates to "membership in associations in the field." Further, 
there is no evidence demonstrating that the U.S. Chess Federation, Monchess, or the Monshatar 
Chess Club require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits documentation showing that he competed for Mongolia's national 
chess team at the 34Ih Chess Olympiad in Istanbul, Turkey (2000) and at the World University 
Championships (2000). The petitioner also submits "General ratings statistics for Mongolia" from 
FIDE reflecting that the country has 52 active players, including 3 Grandmasters and 4 International 
Masters. The record, however, does not include supporting evidence showing that membership on 
the Mongolian team required outstanding achievements. We acknowledge that membership on an 
Olympic team or a major national team such as a World Cup soccer team may serve to meet this 
criterion as such teams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous selection process. 
We reiterate, however, that it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that he meets every element of a 
given criterion, including that he is a member of a team that requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. We will not presume that every 
national "team" is sufficiently exclusive. Without documentary evidence showing the selection 
requirements for the Mongolian team, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets the elements of 
this regulatory criterion. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's International Master designation by FIDE also meets 
this regulatory criterion. The petitioner has not established that attainment of this title or rating 
equates to membership in an association in the field. Further, while the petitioner met the 
requirements necessary to attain this ranking in 2000, there is no evidence demonstrating that FIDE 
requires such a rating for admission to membership. For instance, there is no evidence showing that 
novices and casual chess players are excluded from FIDE's membership body. Moreover, as 
previously discussed, the Grandmaster designation is the highest ranking conferred by FIDE upon chess 
players and thus it is more indicative of outstanding achievement. Finally, we note that the petitioner's 
appellate submission includes his most recent chess player rating from FIDE as of 2004, which had 
declined to 2392, a level below the usual rating for International ~asters.~ 
Even if the petitioner were to submit evidence demonstrating that his International Master 
designation or Mongolian national team participation suffice to meet the plain language of this 
criterion, there is no evidence showing that he has maintained a FIDE rating above 2400 or 
9 
Information from the USCF indicates that an International Master is "usually rated between 2400 and 2500." See 
http://main.uschess.orrr/content/view/7327, accessed on October 19, 2009, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
competed for the Mongolian national team during the three years preceding the petition's January 16, 
2008 filing date. Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his national or international 
acclaim as a chess player has been sustained. 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 preceding evidence is not consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim as of the date of filing of this petition and, thus, is 
insufficient to meet this criterion without additional evidence under this criterion or other criteria 
documenting the petitioner's more recent acclaim as a chess player or coach. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classijication 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. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. 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 
 lo 
The petitioner submitted an April 30, 2004 letter from the Editor-in-Chief of the Century News, a 
Mongolian publication, stating: "[The petitioner], an international master of the national team of 
Mongolia and one of the most promising chess players of the country, has been performing for our 
chess club called 'MONCHESS' at the Century News between 1998 and 2000." On appeal, counsel 
argues that this letter constitutes evidence for this regulatory criterion. Nothing in the letter from the 
Editor-in-Chief of the Century News indicates that this newspaper published material about the 
petitioner. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the submission of "[plublished 
material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media" including "the 
title, date, and author of the material." The letter from the Editor-in-Chief of the Century News does not 
meet the preceding requirements. Regarding the comment that the petitioner is among "the most 
promising chess players of the country," we note that the petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa 
classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for 
individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a book review of Test Your Chess with 
 posted at 
www.ieremysilman.com. The book review, written by 
 in 2005, includes only two 
sentences about the petitioner discussing one of his matches at the 34 Chess Olympiad in Istanbul 
2000 (which was among twenty games analyzed in- book)." This book review and the 
Test Your Chess with yook were not about the petitioner. The plain language of this 
10 
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. 
11 
 The record does not include a copy of the section of Test Your Chess with Daniel King that mentions the petitioner. 
Page 10 
regulatory criterion, however, requires that the published material be "about the alien." Further, there is 
no evidence (such as sales figures or readership statistics) showing that book and 
as professional or major trade publications or other major media. The 
petitioner also submits a "reader commentary" posted in the "Kibitzer's Corner" section of 
www.chessg;ames.com internet site, but the commentary is a duplicate of the two sentences in the John 
Donaldson book review and does not meet the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner's appellate 
submission also includes a December 2, 2003 article about the 110" Scottish Chess Championships 
which incorporated the Edinburgh Chess Congress. The article entitled, "First Woman to be Scottish 
Champion," was posted by the Director of Chess Scotland on the internet site of the British Chess 
Federation and includes only a single sentence mentioning the petitioner. Aside from not being about 
the petitioner, there is no evidence showing that the preceding internet site qualifies as professional or 
major trade publication or some other form of major media. Finally, the petitioner submits event results 
for the 2003 Edinburgh Chess Congress, the 34th Chess Olympiad in Istanbul (2000), and the 6h 
World University Championships (2000), but these results do not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. Moreover, the 
preceding evidence does not establish that the petitioner's national or international acclaim as a chess 
player or coach has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3). 
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 alliedJield of speciJication for which classfication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The evidence submitted 
to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim.12 A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(2). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a February 24, 2009 letter 
from I ~on~olian Youth International, San Francisco, states: 
[The petitioner] has been a volunteer since 2007 for the Mongolian Youth International Non- 
Profit Organization in San Francisco Bay Area. He is a [sic] enthusiastic and thoughtful 
individual who never hesitated to help for ow children's events. 
12 
We note that although not binding precedent, this interpretation has been upheld in Yasar v. DHS, 2006 6 778623 *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24,2006) and All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 * 11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 
2005). 
[The petitioner] is [sic] been integral part of our foundation and has partaken in the Chess and 
Checker tournament during International Children's Day 2008 event. [The petitioner] 
anticipated [sic] as of the judged [sic] of the tournament. 
The petitioner's participation as a judge at the International Children's Day 2008 event post-dates the 
filing of this petition. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
QQ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, 
the AAO will not consider the petitioner's participation as judge at this event in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's 
participation . . . as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification." We 
cannot conclude that judging children at a recreational youth tournament meets this requirement. 
Further, the record does not include supporting evidence establishing the level of acclaim associated 
with judging at this youth event. Internal review of student work is not indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim and, thus, cannot serve to meet this criterion. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2009 
WL 2836453, *5 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. Moreover, the preceding evidence does not establish that the petitioner's national or 
international acclaim as a chess player or coach has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signlJicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted various reference letters in support of the petition. We cite representative 
examples here. 
states that the petitioner "is a talented and strong chess player. 
 He has good 
performance and skills for a chess trainer." 
one of the strongest chess players in Northern California and a well-known chess coach." While the 
petitioner may be a strong player in the Northern California region, the statute and regulations 
require sustained national or international acclaim. 
I am 14 years of age. I have been playing chess for over three years now. My USCF rating 
is about 1400. [The petitioner] has been coaching me for a year and he is an excellent 
coachJteacher. I haven't competed in a tournament since December 2008 but my next big 
tournament is the first weekend of March. [The petitioner] has been coaching for a long time 
and his coaching techniques are great. He teaches me many new things and coaches me to 
think outside the box. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of reference letters from various individuals praising 
his talent as a chess player and coach. Talent in one's field, however, is not necessarily indicative of 
original contributions of major significance. With regard to the petitioner's competitive and 
coaching achievements, the reference letters do not specify exactly what his original contributions in 
chess have been, nor is there an explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major 
significance in his field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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. While the petitioner 
may have helped various players improve their chess skills, the documentation submitted by him 
does not establish that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. For 
example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other chess players or 
coaches nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result 
of his work so as to demonstrate the petitioner's significant contribution to his field. 
The reference letters submitted by the petitioner, while not without weight, cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinion statements submitted 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 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. 
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 an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
original contributions of major significance that one would expect of a chess player or coach who 
has sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the 
petitioner's achievements have been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or 
have otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude 
that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 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. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, the petitioner 
has not submitted evidence showing that his acclaim as a chess player and coach has been sustained. 
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). 
Specifically, the record does not include evidence of nationally or internationally acclaimed 
achievements and recognition subsequent to the petitioner's arrival in the United States in August 
2003. 
Page 13 
While USCIS has approved prior 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner, 
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 on 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 nonirnmigrant 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. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (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, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comrn. 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). 
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, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001),.cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 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 or 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 appeal 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. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.