dismissed EB-1A Case: Chess

identifying data deleted to 
revent clearly unwarr~ted 
1nvasion of personal pnvacy 
1'UBLICCOPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
WashirHlton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: NOV 25 20'\ Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § 1153(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
MOWt1~ 
f 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he has received a major, internationally recognized award and 
that he meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (iii) and (viii). For the 
reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
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. 
Page 3 
u.s. Citizenship and hnmigration 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 101st 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. [d. and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, m 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while uscrs may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, uscrs determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 
at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
This petition, filed on April 23, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a chess club player, director, and coach. 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
A. Major, internationally recognized award 
The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, specifically a major, 
internationally recognized award. Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small 
percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," 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 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. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top 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 internationally recognized in the alien's field 
as one of the top awards in that field. 
The petitioner submitted a diploma from the World Chess Federation (FIDE) stating that he 
"obtained the title of International Master in the year 2000." On appeal, the petitioner argues that 
his 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 Handbook.2 For example, FIDE may confer the 
International Master designation on a player based on his "achieving norms in internationally rated 
tournaments" or "having achieved norms" in "events covering at least 27 games" rather than his 
actually winning those tournaments? As the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) clearly defines a one-time achievement as a major, internationally recognized award, 
the AAO cannot conclude that attaining an International Master rating meets the requirements of the 
regulation. Further, the AAO cannot ignore documentation submitted by the petitioner 
demonstrating the existence of the higher title of "Grandmaster." A Grandmaster is the highest 
rating conferred by FIDE upon chess players.4 Accordingly, the Grandmaster title, rather than the 
2 See http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=57 &view=article, accessed on October 21, 2011, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. "GM [Grandmaster] performance is 2: 2600 performance against opponents with average 
rating 2: 2380. 1M [International Master] performance is 2: 2450 performance against opponents with average rating 
2: 2230." [d. 
3 See http://wwvv.fide.comlfide/handbook?id=58&view=article. accessed on October 21, 2011, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 
4 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 
Page 6 
International Master designation, represents a rating at the very top of the petitioner's field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, more than thirteen hundred male players hold 
FIDE's Grandmaster designation and more than three thousand male players hold its International 
Master designation at any given time.s 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a January 21,2010 letter 
from the General Secretary of the Mongolian Chess Federation stating: "The World Chess 
Federation awarded [the petitioner] the title of International Master. To be eligible, a player must be 
in the top .25% of all chess players in the world." The petitioner also submitted a January 21,2010 
letter from the Chairman of the Physical Culture and Sports Authority stating: "The honor and title 
of International Chess Master and the Grandmaster are only awarded to chess players who have 
been recognized as one of the small percentage who plays so well that reach the top 0.25% of all 
tournament players of the chess field, after the player's winning several international championships 
against other international chess masters." [Emphasis added.] The petitioner's response also 
included a January 20, 2010 letter from the President of the Mongolian Olympic Committee stating: 
"Indeed, the honor and title of International Chess Master and the Grandmaster are only awarded to 
members who have been recognized as one of the small percentage who plays so well that reach the 
top 0.25% of all tournament players of the chess field, after the player's winning several 
international championships which also involve other international chess masters." [Emphasis 
added.] 
Nothing in the regulations of the FIDE Handbook indicates that eligibility for the title of 
International Master is contingent upon being in the top .25% of all chess players in the world. 
Further, unlike the letter from the General Secretary of the Mongolian Chess Federation, the letters 
from the Chairman of the Physical Culture and Sports Authority and the President of the Mongolian 
Olympic Committee include the Grandmaster title in the top .25% level. Moreover, according to 
the FIDE Handbook and contrary to the statement in the latter two letters, "winning several 
international championships" involving other international chess masters is not the "only" means 
through which a player can qualify as an International Master. The AAO may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is 
not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, the AAO is not required to 
accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
The record also includes documentation from Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, stating: 
• Grandmaster (shortened as GM, sometimes International Grandmaster or IGM is 
used) is awarded to world-class chess masters. Apart from World Champion, 
Master as "the ranking just below Grandmaster, usually rated between 2400 and 2500, and also awarded by FIDE." 
See http://main.uschess.org/contentJviewI7327, accessed on October 21, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
5 See http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml, October 21, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 7 
Grandmaster is the highest title a chess player can attain. Before FIDE will confer the 
title on a player, the player must have an Elo chess rating ... of at least 2500 at one 
time and three favorable results (called norms) in tournaments involving other 
Grandmasters, including some from countries other than the applicant's. There are 
also other milestones a player can achieve to attain the title, such as winning the 
World Junior Championship. 
• International Master (shortened as 1M). The conditions are similar to GM, but less 
demanding. The minimum rating for the 1M title is 2400. 
Additional material submitted by the petitioner from Wikipedia states: "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 1M title." 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 (8th Cir. 2008). 
Accordingly, the AAO will not assign weight to information for which Wikipedia is the source. 
Aside from the aforementioned deficiencies, the AAO notes that the preceding information from 
Wikipedia and the letters from the Chairman of the Physical Culture and Sports Authority and the 
President of the Mongolian Olympic Committee use the phrase "the top 0.25% of all tournament 
players" [emphasis added] to describe those who have received the International Master 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 statutory standards for immigrant classification as an alien of 
"extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994); 56 Fed. 
Reg. at 60899. Likewise, it does not follow that a statistical universe including youth, novice, and 
casual chess tournament players constitutes an appropriate basis for comparison. The AAO notes 
that in Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he 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; 
6 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE 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://en.wikipedia.org/wikilWikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on October 21, 2011, copy incorporated 
into the record of proceedings. 
Page 8 
but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This 
interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, 
No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
§ 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. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 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." 
Moreover, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires the petitioner's 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. There is no documentary evidence (such as 
extensive media coverage) showing the level of recognition accorded to the petitioner's receipt of 
his International Master diploma. The documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to 
demonstrate that his attainment of an International Master diploma was recognized at a level 
commensurate with a major, internationally recognized award. Accordingly, the petitioner has 
failed to demonstrate evidence of a qualifying one-time achievement. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).7 
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 
ederation, stating: 
[The petitioner's] biggest ever achievements as chess sportsman are as following: 
• 
• 
• 
• • 
• 
• • 
• 
l~u<uu"va.,u open tournament, Berdichev, Russia-best foreign player 
''''H'~''",",''''''' open tournament, Beijing, China-FIDE rating of2325 
«, ... <va ... u open tournament "B" section, Irkutsk, Russia - 2nd rank 
.. ~."'"'.,,~. open tournament, Tula, Russia - 4th rank 
..... u .. , ... blitz (5') chess championship, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia -Winner 
rapid (30') chess championship, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia -Winner 
lin blitz championship, Berlin, Germany -Winner 
rapid championship, Berlin, Germany - Runner-up 
erlin rapid championship, Berlin, Germany - Winner 
7 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 9 
• • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Berlin championship, Berlin, Germany - 4th rank 
International tournament, Potsdam, Germany - Winner 
International tournament Lichtenrade, Berlin, Germany - 3rd rank 
Intl. open tournament "Berlin summer," Berlin, Germany - Price [sic] 
International tournament, Yangon, Myanmar - 4 - 6th rank:, 1M norm 
World cities championship, Shenyan, China - Ulaanbaatar team member 
Asian team championship, Shenyan, China - National team member 
Asian universities team championship, Kuala-Lampur, Malaysia - Winner 
National championship, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia - Runner-up 
[6th] World universities championship, Varna, Bulgaria - Bronze medal (MGL) 
World Chess Olympiad, Istanbul, Turkey - Nat. team, 2nd 1M norm 
England team championship, UK - Winner (Essex) 
110th National open of Scotland, Scotland, UK - Winner 
Essex blitz championship, Essex, UK - Winner 
In support of tournament results and a 
photograph from in Varna reflecting that his 
team placed 3rd in the team competition (the petitIOner placed 9th in the men's individual 
competition), but there is no evidence showing that petitioner received a prize or an award that is 
. . . reco· The . also submitted results from the _ 
the Edinburgh listing the petitioner 
among The submitted 
documentation not supportmg significance and 
magnitude of the competitive category won by the petitioner at or 
evidence demonstrating 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. ,,8 The burden is on· the level of recognition and 
achievement associated with his prize. A victory in an event 
category with a limited pool of entrants or talent is not evidence of national or international 
recognition. 
The petitioner also submitted the M ran team's ind··d 1 1 yer results at Olympiad 
"Herren" in Istanbul, Turkey in 2000 The "Team Composition 
with round-results" reflect that the the Mongolian entrants 
(advancing to the 10th round) - placing below his Grandmaster teammates Hatanbaatar Bazar and 
Sharavdorj Dashzeveg (who both advanced to the 13th round). There is no evidence showing the 
petitioner's overall placing in the Istanbul Olympiad tournament or evidence of his receipt of a 
prize or an award. 
The petitioner submitted photographs from the 
"1999 Asian universities team championship," and the 
8 The record indicates that the petitioner was residing in Newcastle, United Kingdom at that time. 
Page 10 
but the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence of his prizes or awards from the 
competitions' organizers, or documentation of the tournaments' official competitive results. 
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 
or awards at the remaining tournaments and championships specified in 
Gendengyn's May 1, 2004 letter. Rather than submitting primary evidence of his prizes and 
awards from the tournaments' organizers, the petitioner instead submitted a third-party letter from 
attesting to their existence. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972». A petition must be filed with any initial 
evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that 
primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary 
evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner 
rely on affidavits. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner must submit an original written 
statement on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the reason the record does not exist 
and whether similar records for the time and are available. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The 
May 1, 2004 letter from does not comply with the preceding regulatory 
requirements. 
The petitioner also submitted a diploma from FIDE stating that he "obtained the title of 
International Master in the year 2000." As previously discussed, there is no documentary 
evidence (such as media coverage) showing the level of recognition accorded to the petitioner's 
receipt of an International Master diploma. 
The petitioner did not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of his particular 
awards, such as national or widespread local coverage of his awards in professional or general 
media. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(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 documentary 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's awards are recognized beyond the presenting 
organizations and therefore commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field. 
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 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
Page 11 
The petitioner submitted letters from the General Secretary of the Mongolian Chess Federation, the 
Chairman of the Physical Culture and Sports Authority, and the President of the Mongolian 
Olympic Committee stating the petitioner was selected as a member of "Mongolia's National Chess 
Team, the All-Star Team and Olympic Chess Team.,,9 The May 1, 2004 letter from 
confirms that the petitioner belonged to the Mongolian men's national chess team 
to 2000." The petitioner also submitted tournament results from the Olympiad 
"Herren" in Istanbul (2000) World University Championships in Varna (2000) 
reflecting that he competed for Mongolia in those competitions. The petitioner's evidence also 
included "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 documentary evidence showing that membership on the Mongolian team required 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. While a 
team is not strictly speaking an "association," it is nonetheless equally true that a player can earn 
a place on a national or an Olympic team through rigorous competition which separates the very 
best from the great majority of participants in a given sport. Therefore, a player's 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. The AAO reiterates, 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. The AAO will not presume that every national "team" is sufficiently 
exclusive. Without evidence showing, for instance, the selection requirements for the Mongolian 
national chess team, the AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner meets the elements of this 
regulatory criterion. 
The January 20,2010 letter from the Chairman of the Physical Culture and Sports Authority states 
that the petitioner _ and served as a player and coach for the Monchess chess club in 
Mongolia. The petitioner, a USCF member, also submitted documentation showing that he 
organized the Monshatar chess club in California as an affiliate of the USCF. 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 
USCF, the Monchess chess club, and the Monshatar chess club require outstanding achievements 
of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's 
field. 
The petitioner submitted his diploma from FIDE stating that he "obtained the title of 
International Master in the year 2000." 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 
9 The International Olympic Committee does not include chess among the official competitive events in the Olympic 
Games. See http://www.fide.com/componenticontentiarticie/ JS-chess-news/36 77 -chess- wiU-soon-be-an-o Ivmpic­
spor.html, accessed on October 24, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 12 
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, the 
AAO notes that the record includes the petitioner's most recent chess player rating from FIDE as of 
2009, which had declined to 2346, a level below the usual rating for International Masters.1O 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor which classification 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. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers. 11 
The petitioner initially submitted a book review of posted at 
www.jeremysilman.com. The book review, written by in 2005, includes only two 
sentences about the petitioner discussing one of his matches at the Chess Olympiad in Istanbul 
analyzed 12 This book review and 
were not about the petitioner. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires, however, that the published material be "about the 
alien." Further, there is no documentary evidence (such as sales information or readership data) 
showing that Daniel King's book and www.jeremysilman.com qualify as major trade publications or 
other major media. The petitioner also submitted a "reader commentary" posted in the "Kibitzer's 
Comer" section of www.chessgames.cominternet 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 regulatory 
criterion. The petitioner's initial evidence also included a December 2, 2003 article about the l10th 
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 
petItlOner. Aside from not being about the petitioner, there is no evidence showing that the 
preceding internet site qualifies as a major trade publication or some other form of major media. In 
10 An International Master is "usually rated between 2400 and 2500." See http://main.uschess.org/contentJ 
viewI7327, accessed on October 21, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
11 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. 
12 The record does not include a copy of the section of Test Your Chess with Daniel King that mentions the petitioner. 
Page 13 
addition, the petitioner submitted event results for the 
Chess Olympiad in Istanbul (2000), and _ World University Championships (2000), but 
these results do not meet the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an incomplete English 
language translation of a November 29,2000 article in Zuunii Medee entitled "0. Ganbold wins V. 
Kramnick." Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), any document containing 
foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language 
translation that 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. In 
addition to being incomplete, the English language translation accompanying the article did not 
identify the translator and did not include the translator's certification that he or she is competent 
to translate from Mongolian into English. 
The petitioner submitted an English language translation of a September 16, 2000 article in Zuunii 
Medee entitled "Mongolian Chess players bring Bronze medal from World International Student 
Federation (FISU)," but he did not submit a copy of the original article in the Mongolian language. 
Further, the author of the article was not identified and the article was not about the petitioner as 
required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, the 
English language translation of the article does not comply with the requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) because it did not did not identify the translator and did not 
include the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from Mongolian into 
English. 
The petitioner submitted an incomplete English language translation of a February 13, 1999 article 
in National Right entitled "Fulfilled International Master Title Normative." In addition to being 
incomplete, the English language translation accompanying the article did not identify the 
translator and did not include the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from Mongolian into English as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner submitted an English language translation of an article in Unuudur, but he did not 
submit a copy of the original article in the Mongolian language. Further, the title and date of the 
article were not identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, the English language translation of the article does not comply 
with the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) because it did not identify the 
translator and did not include the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from Mongolian into English. 
The petitioner submitted an incomplete English language translation of an article published in 
Mongolian Daily in 2000 entitled "Mongolian Chess Players will in [sic] Olympiad, Istanbul, 
Turkey." This article is about the tournament in general and only mentions the petitioner in 
passing. As previously discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires that the published material be "about the alien." See, e.g., Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 
2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1,*7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a 
Page 14 
show are not about the actor). In addition to being incomplete, the English language translation 
accompanying the article does not comply with the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3) because it did not identify the translator and did not include the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from Mongolian into English. 
The petitioner submitted an incomplete English language translation of an article entitled 
"Awards." The date of the article and the name of the publication were not identified as required 
by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In addition to being 
incomplete, the English language translation of the article did not comply with the requirements 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) because it did not did not identify the translator and 
did not include the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from 
Mongolian into English. 
The petitioner submitted an incomplete English language translation of an article entitled "Grant 
of 3600-28000 tugrugs." The date and author of the article and the name of the publication were 
not identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In 
addition to being incomplete, the English language translation of the article did not comply with 
the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) because it did not identify the 
translator and did not include the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from Mongolian into English. 
The petitioner submitted incomplete English language translations of two articles in Sport. The 
dates of the articles were not provided as required by the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Further, the article in Sport entitled "Teenage Chess Tournament" is 
about the tournament in general and only mentions the petitioner's name in passing. In addition 
to being incomplete, the English language translations of the articles did not comply with the 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) because they did not identify the 
translator and did not include the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from Mongolian into English. 
Aside from the preceding deficiencies, the petitioner has not established that Sport, Zuunii Medee 
Mongolian Daily, National Right, and Unuudur qualify as professional or major trade publications 
or other major media. The petitioner submitted information from NewsWealth.com listing Zuunii 
Medee and Unuudur as "Major Mongolian newspapers," but the submitted material does not 
specify the basis for the website's determination or the source of its data. There is no reliable 
documentation (such as quantifiable circulation evidence) showing the distribution of the preceding 
publications to demonstrate that the submitted articles were published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Page 15 
~ly discussed, the petitioner submitted a May 1, 2004 letter 
~tating that the petitioner belonged to the Mongolian men's national team 
"from 1997 to 2000." There is no documentary evidence showing that the Mongolian team had a 
distinguished reputation. Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's role for the 
team wfls leading or critical. For instance, there is no evidence distinguishing the petitioner's 
results at chess tournaments from those of the other national team members (such as a 
comprehensive tally of tournament victories or matches won) during the three years he 
competed. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. Without documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's achievements differentiated 
him from those of his fellow teammates, the AAO cannot conclude that he was responsible for 
the Mongolian national team's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of 
"leading or critical role." The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not demonstrate that his 
role significantly differentiated him from the other members of the team (including his 
Grandmaster teammates or indicate how his role 
was leading or critical for the team as a 
The petitioner submitted a January 20, 2010 letter from the Chairman of the Physical Culture and 
Sports Authority stating that the petitioner co-founded and served as a player and coach for the 
Monchess chess club in Mongolia. The preceding reference asserts that Monchess is 
"Mongolia's most famous chess club," but there is no documentary evidence to support the 
assertion. As previously discussed, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Further, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 
1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The petitioner also submitted an April 30, 2004 letter from the Editor-in-Chief of the Century News, 
a Mongolian publication, stating: "[The petitioner] ... has been performing for our chess club 
called 'MONCHESS' at the Century News between 1998 and 2000." The petitioner's evidence also 
included documentation showing that he organized the Monshatar chess club in California. 
There is no documentary evidence showing that the Monchess and Monshatar chess clubs have 
earned a distinguished reputation. Further, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner do 
not provide sufficient information detailing the specific nature of the petitioner's duties and 
responsibilities to demonstrate that his role for the chess clubs was leading or critical. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). A 
final merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
Page 16 
C. Final Merits Determination 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits detennination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 1119-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in the AAO's discussion of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (iii) and (viii). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 c'P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), this decision has already addressed why the submitted awards do not rise to the 
level of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. As previously 
discussed, the petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he received a team bronze 
medal at 6th World University Championships (2000), but 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 previously discussed, USCIS has long held that even 
athletes perfonning at the major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954; 
56 Ped. Reg. at 60899. Likewise, it does not follow that placing third in a competition limited to 
university students should necessarily qualify a chess player for approval of an extraordinary ability 
employment-based immigrant visa petition. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory 
requirement at 8 C.P.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." Moreover, there is no 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has received any qualifying prizes or awards in chess 
subsequent to 2003. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that 
his national or international acclaim 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'P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) is not commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim as of the petition's filing date. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
as previously discussed, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's associations require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field. The petitioner has not established that his memberships are 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that 
he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. The AAO notes that 
the record includes the petitioner's most recent chess player rating from PIDE as of 2009, which had 
declined to 2346, a level below the usual rating for International Masters. Moreover, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has competed for the Mongolian team or any other national 
team subsequent to 2000. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to 
Page 17 
demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
documentation submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) is not 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as of the petition's filing date. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 c.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), all of the petitioner's submissions were deficient in at least one of the 
regulatory requirements such as not including a date or an author, not being about the petitioner, 
or not being accompanied by evidence that they were published in major media. Purther, the 
English language translations of the articles submitted by the petitioner do not comply with the 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, there is no evidence 
indicating that the petitioner has been the subject of published or online material since the early 
2000s. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national 
or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for the regulatory 
criterion at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is not commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim as of the petition's filing date. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner has not established that he has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. Moreover, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner has competed for the Mongolian national team subsequent to 2000. 
The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or 
international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) is not commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim as of the petition's filing date. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing were 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a chess club player, director, and 
coach, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The AAO 
cannot ignore the April 30, 2004 letter from the Editor-in-Chief of the Century News in Mongolia 
stating that the petitioner is "one of the most promising chess players of the country." [Emphasis 
added.] 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. Merely demonstrating that the petitioner has competed 
nationally and internationally or contributed to developing local chess clubs is not useful in setting 
him apart from other chess players and coaches through a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien must (1) demonstrate 
sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as 
shown through extensive documentation) ... " The conclusion we reach by considering the 
evidence to meet each category of evidence at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not 
Page 18 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
D. Prior 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Status 
The AAO notes that the alien is the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition 
for an alien of extraordinary. This prior approval does 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 upon review of 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 nonimmigrant 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 (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, 191&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that uscrs 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, No. 98-2855, 
2000 WL 282785, *1, *3 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 
(2001). 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203 (b)(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Page 19 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.