dismissed EB-1A Case: Chess

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 22, 2023 In Re : 26986919 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chess trainer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirements for this classification by 
demonstrating his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by submitting evidence to 
satisfy at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 8 C.F.R . § 103.3 . 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369 , 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences , arts, education, business , or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis . First , a petitioner may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a professional chess trainer who has coached youth and adult players for national, 
European, and international competition in Norway, Greece, and Georgia. He intends to continue his 
work as a chess trainer in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must show that he satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims that he can meet four of the initial evidentiary 
criteria. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met the two criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (viii) 
based on his participation as a judge of the work of others in the field and his performance in a leading 
or critical role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. The record 
supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) based on his critical role as a coach for the Women's National Team, 
which earned a silver medal at the~---------~in 2022. However, for the reasons 
discussed below, we will withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfies the 
criterion relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and 
(v), based on his memberships in professional associations that require outstanding achievements and 
his original contributions of major significance in his field. 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude the Petitioner has not satisfied at least 
three regulatory criteria and therefore does not meet the initial evidence requirements for classification 
as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
2 
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, and 
that such achievements are judged by recognized experts in the field. Membership requirements based 
on employment in a certain occupation, minimum education or experience, or payment of dues or fees do 
not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. See generally 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8)(2) Appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
In a cover letter that accompanied the initial petition filing, the Petitioner stated that he "is a member 
of numerous Chess Clubs and Associations, and he has a sufficiently high Chess Rating to be a FIDE 
Certified Chess Trainer." The Petitioner also stated that he is a "National Master of the US Chess 
Federation." 
The Petitioner provided a certificate from the U.S. Chess Federation indicating that he achieved the 
official title of National Master in October 2021, accompanied by a letter from the organization 
welcoming him into "a select circle of chess players." The Petitioner also submitted his profile page 
from the International Chess Federation (Federation Internationale de Echecs or FIDE) which lists his 
world, continental and national ranks, his chess rating I l and a FIDE Instructor title. He provided 
a certificate issued by the FIDE Trainers' Commission of the Norwegian Chess Federation, indicating 
his successful participation in a two-day FIDE Trainers' Seminar in Norway in June 2018. Finally, 
the Petitioner submitted an excerpt from the FIDE Handbook which includes the organization's 
"Regulations for the Titles of Trainers." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director observed that "no evidence or claim was submitted for 
this criterion" in reference to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The Petitioner did not address the membership 
criterion in his response to the RFE. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director erroneously discounted the evidence submitted 
in support of this criterion. He emphasizes that he "is a highly ranked member of [FIDE] and is a 
FIDE Trainer; a member of the Norwegian Chess Federation; and he is a U.S. National Master in 
Chess." He further states: 
The process of becoming FIDE Instructor and Trainer is complex and multistage. The 
first step is to receive a recommendation from the National Federation as well as 
required experience and education. A candidate should also possess a minimum FIDE 
rating of 1800. [The Petitioner] has become a FIDE Instructor in 2018 and is currently 
a FIDE Arbiter and Trainer." 
While we agree with the Petitioner that the Director appears to have overlooked his claim that he meets 
this criterion, the submitted evidence does not establish that the Petitioner is a member in an 
association that requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in the field. 
The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that he is a member of the Norwegian Chess Federation and has 
achieved the title of National Master with the U.S. Chess Federation. While he provided a certificate 
documenting his National Master title, he did not document his membership in the Norwegian Chess 
Federation, nor did he provide evidence of the membership requirements related to either of these 
3 
organizations and his specific level of membership. Without this evidence, we cannot evaluate 
whether either of these memberships satisfies all elements of the plain language of the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The Petitioner did not meet his burden to establish that he satisfies this 
criterion based on his membership in the Norwegian or U.S. Chess Federations. 
The Petitioner states on appeal that he is currently a FIDE Trainer and FIDE Arbiter, but he has not 
submitted evidence to document that he has received these titles from FIDE and that he held one or 
both titles when he filed the petition in September 2022. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) (stating that a 
petitioner must establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time of filing and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication). Further, although the Petitioner provided an excerpt from the FIDE 
Handbook with "Regulations for the Titles of Trainers," he did not submit comparable evidence 
regarding FIDE' s requirements for granting the title of Arbiter. 
As noted, the Petitioner's FIDE profile indicates he was a FIDE Instructor as of 2018, and he submitted 
evidence that he successfully completed a FIDE Trainers' seminar that fulfilled part of the 
organization's requirements for this title. According to the submitted regulations for the FIDE 
Trainers' System, the title of FIDE Instructor requires an application. To be qualified as a FIDE 
Instructor, one must be a trainer of a national champion or junior or youth champion, have achieved a 
career high rating of at least 2000, and complete a successful professional skills evaluation as a 
participant in a FIDE Trainer's Commission Seminar. 1 The FIDE Handbook includes evaluation tables 
describing a points system used for determining a person's title. Points are awarded based on an 
individual's highest FIDE or national rating, student results, published material, years of experience, 
and written examinations. 
According to the FIDE Handbook, the title recommendations are made by the lecturer in charge of the 
FIDE Trainers' Seminar, endorsed by the FIDE Trainers' Commission, and then submitted for 
approval "by either the PB, EB or GA." The regulations indicate that upon approval a trainer will 
receive "an official diploma and badge" with their photograph and license validity. We note that the 
Petitioner did not submit a copy of his official diploma and badge from FIDE as evidence that he 
passed through all stages of the approval process to become a licensed FIDE Instructor. 
Further, while receiving approval for the FIDE Instructor title appears to require a certain baseline 
level of experience, skill and achievement as a chess player and instructor ( evaluated using a points 
system), the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support a finding that a FIDE member's 
achievement of that title requires "outstanding achievements" as judged by national or international 
experts in the field. The level of membership afforded to the person must show that to obtain that 
level of membership, the person was judged by recognized national or international experts as having 
attained outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. The submitted 
regulations from the FIDE Handbook, without additional context, do not establish that the minimum 
requirements for the "Instructor" title are judged by experts as "outstanding achievements" nor is there 
evidence that the individual( s) who make the final decision to approve the title are recognized national 
1 The FIDE Handbook indicates that there are two lower classes of instructor/trainer (National Instructor and 
Developmental Instructor) that are below FIDE Instructor, and two higher classes of instructor/trainer (FIDE Trainer and 
FIDE Senior Trainer. with the latter requiring significantly higher levels of achievement such as publishing books and 
manuals, serving as a FIDE seminar lecturer, founding chess schools that have developed titled players, and originating 
and developing educational systems or programs in the field.) 
4 
or international experts in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he meets the 
requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Evidence ofthe individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
To establish that he meets this criterion, the Petitioner submitted printouts of 'Tournament Details" 
for four chess tournaments from the website of the International Chess Federation. This evidence 
identified the Petitioner as "Chief Arbiter" for the Open Tournament in,___~ _______ ____. 
held in Greece in 2012, and as one of several "Deputy Arbiters" for three youth championship 
tournaments held in Greece in 2009, 2010, and 2012. 
In the RFE, the Director acknowledged this evidence, but advised the Petitioner that additional 
documentation would be required to establish that he meets the plain language of this criterion, based 
on the nature of the activities he performed at these tournaments. The Petitioner's response to the RFE 
did not address his role as an arbiter at the above-referenced events, but the Director nevertheless 
concluded, without additional explanation, that he satisfied this criterion. 
The record does not contain evidence describing the activities the Petitioner performed in his capacity 
as a deputy or chief arbiter at the referenced chess tournaments. If the petitioner simply enforced the 
rules of a match and sportsmanlike competition, then his participation as an arbiter cannot be said to 
have involved evaluating or judging the work of the competitors. Without further evidence that he 
judged the work of others, such as evidence that he awarded points or exercised his judgment in 
choosing the ultimate winner, evidence regarding officiating is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
The Petitioner claims that he can meet 
four of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). While he established that he meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we conclude, for 
the reasons provided above, that he did not provide evidence demonstrating that he satisfies the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(ii) and (iv). Accordingly, he cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Detailed discussion of the remaining claimed criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which relates to 
original contributions of major significance in the field, cannot change the outcome of the appeal. The 
Director determined that the evidence submitted in support of this criterion demonstrated that the 
Petitioner made contributions that were significant for individual chess players and for organizations 
that employed him but did not establish that he made original contributions of major significance that 
impacted the broader field of chess or influenced the work of others. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
additional evidence and asserts that he made a "significant impact ... on the popularization of the 
game of Chess inl las a whole," based on his successful coaching of thel INational 
Women's Chess Team. However, we will reserve discussion of this criterion and the Petitioner's 
appellate arguments related to this issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating 
5 
that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and decisions 
unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As a result, we 
do not need to provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the material in the aggregate, concluding that 
while the Petitioner has achieved some significant success as a chess trainer, the record does not 
support a determination that he has established the acclaim and recognition required for the 
classification sought. 
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 that goal. 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. Comm'r 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6