dismissed EB-1A Case: Chess

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 2 4 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Cit izenship and Immigration Service: 
Admini strati ve Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave .. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(J)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision ofthe Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case , you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are locat ed at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or M otio n (Form J-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision . The Form 1-2908 web page (www.uscis.gov /i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location , and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
MZT;:-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 312015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We 
will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) , which 
makes 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 determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the 
initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a 
one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement. The petitioner's main assertion is that the director 
erred in raising 
concerns in the denial that he did not raise in the request for evidence (RFE). 
1 
The 
petitioner does not, however , provide the evidence or assertions she would have offered in rebuttal to 
the RFE had it included the concerns the director raised in the final decision. We will consider all of 
the evidence of record below. 
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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively 
the United States. 
1 
Where the initial evidence does not establish eligibility, USCIS may deny the petition without first issuing an RFE. 
8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(8)(iii). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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 st Cong., 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; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the petitioner's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the petitioner's achievements 
in the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient 
qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. 
USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), 
aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) 
(finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criterii 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
mvardsfor excellence in the field o_fendeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the 
petitioner is the recipient of the prizes or the awards. The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the 
regulation also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for 
excellence in the field of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event 
2 
We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims to 
meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
or to a group. The petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided several foreign language prize or award certificates, a finish at 
American Open a _ finish at the North American Open , and a the 
finish at the International Chess Festival in . The director determined that the 
petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. For the reasons outlined below, a review 
of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence 
establishing that she meets the plain language of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided the United States Chess Federation (USCF) national rankings that indicate 
she attained a national level ranking of , and Further, the July 16, 2014 
letter from President ofUSCF, 
indicates that a players' national level ranking "is based 
wholly on a player's performance in tournaments and games." These notable rankings reflect on the 
nature of the petitioner 's finishes at various events such that she has established that her results at 
these events constitute nationally or internationally recognized awards. 
As a result, the petitioner has submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien 's work in the jieldfor which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the 
published material must be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner 's work 
in the field under which she seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also 
appear in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Professional or major trade 
publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and be published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying a ll of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements ofthis criterion. 
The petitioner provided multiple articles in a foreign language, and one article from the website, 
chesspalace.com. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner provided three foreign language articles, that each appeared in the 
Such evidence must comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), which states: 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENTDECBION 
Translations. Any 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. 
The petitioner provided a single document dated November 6, 2013 that certifies the translator is 
fluent in both the English and Chinese languages, and that he translated the attached documents . 
However, this certification does not list the translations it is certifying. A blanket certification that 
does not identify the translations it is certifying, or name the petitioner , is not probative evidence that 
the certification relates to all of the translations in this record of proceeding. Accordingly , the 
foreign language documents within the record are not probative. The director notified the petitioner 
of deficiencies relating to the translations within the RFE, but the petitioner did not provide new, 
certified translations. 
Regardless , the article titled " 
' is not about the petitioner and does not discuss her or her work in the field. The article 
is about a chess competition in the state of California. Although the atiicle titled " 
" mentions the petitioner, it is not about her, relating to her 
work in the field as required by the regulation . The article discusses the petitioner as the coach of a 
chess club, rather than as a chess competitor. 
The published material that is about the petitioner, relating to her work in the field, is titled " 
. _ _ ." In reference to this article appearing in a form of major 
media, the petitioner submitted the "About Us" page from the website. The website 
indicates the newspaper "is published in 
and and distributed throughout North America." The petitioner has not 
established the circulation data of the to compare with the circulation statistics of 
other United States newspapers. See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 
2012). That the website asserts the newspaper is distributed throughout North America is not 
sufficient to demonstrate this publication has a reach consistent with major media. Additionally , the 
petitioner has not established this publication is a professional or major trade publication in the 
alternative. 
The petitioner also submitted an article titled, " 
" from the website The article is about the petitioner and discusses her 
work as a chess competitor. The petitioner provided the "About Us" page from the website 
explaining that the site is a "club, store and school." This information does not demonstrate the 
reach or influence of the website. While Internet sites are accessible nationally and even 
internationally , we will not presume that every Internet site has significant national or international 
viewership. The act of posting an article online does not necessarily constitute publication in major 
media. The materials relating to chesspalace .com address the objectives of the association , and do 
not indicate that this website routinely attracts national or international attention. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
On appeal, the petitioner submits no additional evidence. For the reasons discussed above, we 
affirm the director's findings. Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets 
the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel , as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
This criterion requires not only that the petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that she actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judge" 
implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have involved judging the work of others 
in the same or an allied field in which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the 
present petition. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the 
plain language requirements of this criterion. The director determined that the petitioner did not 
meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided a translation of a foreign language document titled, · 
'' that is not accompanied by a sufficient certification as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3 ). Regardless, the petitioner did not submit documentary evidence describing 
her duties as a first grade referee. If the petitioner simply enforced the rules of a match and 
sportsmanlike competition, then her participation as a referee cannot be said to have involved 
evaluating or judging the skills or qualifications of the participants. Without further evidence that 
she judged the work of others, such as evidence that she awarded points or exercised her judgment in 
choosing the ultimate winner, evidence regarding officiating is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and the 
role's matching duties. The petitioner has the responsibility to demonstrate that she actually 
performed the duties listed relating to the leading role. A critical role should be apparent from the 
petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's 
performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for the organization or 
establishment as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments 
have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements 
to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. The director determined that the petitioner 
did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner's initial filing statement included a brief assertion that she satisfied this criterion. The 
director's RFE did not request additional evidence for, nor did it address this criterion. In response, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 7 
the petitioner noted the director's lack of discussion of this regulatory provision, again indicating 
that she "has claimed and provided supporting documentation" under this criterion, but did not 
identify the evidence that relates to that criterion. We will review the evidence of record. 
The May 28, 2013, letter from and member of the 
1 indicates that the petitioner served as the captain for the 
In this role, Mr. _ states that the petitioner had strong organizational and management 
skills and that she led the team in training and competition. However, the record does not contain 
evidence of the duties the petitioner performed as captain of this team, nor does it demonstrate that 
Mr. _ is authorized to represent the Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) 
(evidence of experience shall consist of letters from the employer). Additionally , Mr. does 
not explain his firsthand knowledge of the petitioner 's role for the 
The record contains an August 25, 2013, letter from Director of the 
who also served as the organizer of the Southern California _ 
m Mr. indicates that the petitioner served as the 
tournament director. Mr. confirms that the petitioner "worked very competently" and that 
having "a very strong chess player as a tournament director is critical at events as important as 
_ " USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. The 
Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). We will not presume 
that the petitioner performed in a leading or a critical role for the tournament organizers from her 
title. Mr. does not provide information pertaining to where the role of tournament director 
fits within the overall hierarchy of the organization or list the specific duties of the director. Mr. 
also does not explain how the petitioner 's role within the tournament was critical to the 
organization, or what her impact was on the tournament as its director. Mr. subsequently 
discusses the petitioner 's role performed for the However, neither Mr. 
nor the petitioner has demonstrated that he is authorized to represent this organization and 
he does not indicate his firsthand knowledge of this role. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). The record 
includes a letter from President of 
. , who does not discuss the role 
the petitioner performed for the company beyond listing the successful players the petitioner has 
coached there. 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
The petitioner requested that her rankings be considered as comparable evidence to the prizes or 
awards criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(4) allows the submission of comparable 
evidence where the regulatory criteria do not readily apply to the petitioner 's occupation . First, the 
prizes or awards criterion does apply to the petitioner 's occupation. Notably, we have concluded 
above that she meets it. Second, in reaching that conclusion , we considered the petitioner 's rankings 
as indicative of the national or international recognition of the petitioner 's prizes or awards. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Accordingly, we will not consider the petitioner's rankings as independently meeting a second 
criterion. 
C. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three ofthe ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be 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 field of endeavor," 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." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.3 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 
145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits dete1111ination as the 
office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l )(ii); see also INA §§ 1 03(a)( I), 204(b ); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCJS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to 
decide visa petitions).