dismissed EB-1A Case: Competitive Rowing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7584963 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 27, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a competitive rower, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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 Petitioner did not 
satisfy any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which he must meet at least 
three. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish that he would continue work in 
his area of extraordinary ability in the United States . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the previously submitted evidence demonstrates that he meets at 
least three criteria and is otherwise qualified for the benefit sought. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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. 
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 can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a competitive rower who has participated in flat water, outrigger canoe, and ocean 
rowing endurance events in his native Brazil and 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 satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director found that the Petitioner submitted evidence related to four of the ten criteria, but did not 
establish that he meets any of them. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider 
all of the submitted evidence and maintains that he meets the criteria related to nationally or 
internationally recognized awards, published materials, original athletic contributions of major 
significance, and lead or critical roles with organizations that have a distinguished reputation. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he meets 
at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i) 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, 
and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 
international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
In determining that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion, the Director acknowledged that the 
Petitioner submitted photographs of medals without award certificates, a letter from the I I 
Rowing Federation noting some of his results in Brazilian rowing competitions, and a letter from 
US Rowing that states that the Petitioner's awards in Brazil are nationally recognized, but not generally 
covered by the media. The Director found the evidence insufficient to establish the Petitioner's receipt 
of the medals and insufficient to demonstrate that they are nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to acknowledge some of his more significant 
international awards and emphasizes that the Petitioner's medals themselves provide adequate 
evidence of his receipt of nationally-recognized awards in Brazil. 
With respect to the Petitioner's medals in Brazilian state and national rowing competitions, we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to corroborate his receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized awards in these events. We acknowledge the Petitioner's 
claim that he did not receive award certificates with his medals and that his sport is not widely covered 
by the media. However, the record does not contain evidence such as official event results from the 
Brazilian rowing federations sponsoring the events, or a letter from the Brazilian national rowing 
federation corroborating his medal-winning finishes in national events. 
Further, there appear to be some inconsistencies in the submitted testimonial evidence. For example, 
the Petitioner himself states that his "most important accom lishments" in flat water rowing include 
second and third place finishes in the 2007 and 2008 .,._ ______ _. Rowing Championships, 
and the title of 2004 Brazilian Rowingl lin th event. However, letters from his 
rowing club ----------.----.....,,,..._,,.... and the.__ ____ _. rowing federation! I 
indicate that he was ' Cham ion" in the 2004 national competition with a second place 
finish. The letter from also indicates that the Petitioner had a first place 
finish in the 2007.__.-- __ ,......... __ __.while the Petitioner seems to indicate that he finished second, 
and the letter from .___~ indicates that he had a third place finish at this same event. These 
discrepancies underscore the need for official event results. 
Further, we note that even if rowing events were not reported in major media outlets in Brazil, it is 
reasonable to believe that events that resulted in the awarding of nationally recognized awards would 
be covered by the website of the sport's own national governing body. In fact, the Petitioner submitted 
screenshots from the websites ofbothl land Brazilian Rowing which seem to reflect that major 
events and their results are reported there. Here, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner opted to 
provide letters confirming some of his finishes without showing that the bestowed prizes or awards 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
Nevertheless, we find sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner's first place finish in the 2016 
which was not mentioned in the Director's decision, meets this criterion. The '------------' 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6. 
3 
Petitioner submitted official race results, letters from USRowing and Thel I Rowing Society, and 
evidence of international media coverage of the event and his team's first place finish from sources 
including Outside magazine, CNBC, Hujjington Post, as well as Brazilian media outlets and the 
official website of the Brazilian rowing federation. Based on this evidence, we find that the Petitioner 
has satisfied this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field.for which class[fication 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion, noting that some of the 
submitted articles were not about him but merely mentioned him and/or did not include an author. 
The Director found that another article in a Brazilian publication was not accompanied by a proper 
translation. Finally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide "comparative statistics 
showing that the publications, all of which appear to be local, constitute major media." 
On appeal, the Petitioner objects to the Director's determination that published material must be "about 
the beneficiary" in order to meet this criterion. However in doing so, the Petitioner misquotes the 
regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which does in fact require "Published material about 
the alien ... and relating to the alien's work in the field." (Emphasis added). 
The Petitioner's evidence includes an article titled' .__ __________________ __, 
'--------~ that was published by Huffington Post. According to the Petitioner, this article 
"talks almost exclusively about [the Petitioner's JI l" · ·tioner was on 
'-----------' and is named in the article as a member of the.....,_ _____ ___..........,. ........ ...._.. 
not about him or even primarily about the team. Rather, it ident . ..,if=ie=s'-'-------..------' 
current race leader, provides an overview of the standings of the'--------~ on the date of 
publication, provides background information about the race, and highlights the members of some of 
the other competing teams. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence that Outside magazine published an article, titled 1 I 
r I" which identifies fye Petitioner as a member 0~ I 
7~. -~I, 'I j." The author interviewed two members of 
the team about the race and the challenges they faced, but the Petitioner was not interviewed and is 
not otherwise mentioned in the article. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 
8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). Similarly, a press 
release discussing the team's win in thel I was published by CNBC and other outlets 
but onl briefly mentions the Petitioner as a team member. Finall the evidence reflects""th=a=t:..,.._ __ ....., 
chieved a brief entry in the 2018 edition of the L_ _____ ---.- __ ___... ......... ....._ _ __, _ ___, 
.__ ________ ___.' in thel I based on their time in the 1.__ _____ ~__, The 
entry, which is two sentences in length, names the Petitioner as a member of but does .__ _____ __, 
not otherwise mention him and does not satisfy this criterion. 
4 
The Petitioner provided an article that is primarily about him and relating to his work in the sport. The 
article, titled'----------~ was published in the Brazilian magazine Bem-estar. However, 
the article does not identify the date of publication, and it is not accompanied by sufficient evidence 
to establish that Bem-estar magazine is a professional or major trade publication or other major media 
in Brazil. 3 The Petitioner submitted a copy of an email from a person identified as I I who 
indicates that the circulation of Bem-estar is around 30,000 per month. Even if this figure came from 
a clearly reliable source, the record does not contain any comparative circulation figures for Brazilian 
magazines or contain any additional information regarding this magazine or its intended audience that 
would support a finding that it is considered major media. 
The Petitioner submitted additional articles about him and his participation in the.__ ______ _. 
published by the website of the Brazilan Rowing League and SupClub, but these were also lacking 
supporting evidence demonstrating that either website is considered major media in Brazil. All other 
articles submitted post-date the filing of the petition. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing 
through adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted screenshots from videos as evidence of the 
Beneficiary's two appearances on Brazilian television. The Petitioner did not provide transcripts for 
these appearances documenting the content of the interviews or reflecting published material about 
him. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner had submitted evidence that his team holds a 
.__ ________ ___, and submitted letters that discuss his achievements and abilities in rowing 
and his contributions to individual teams for specific events, he did not illustrate how he has been 
recognized for his original athletic contributions in the sport of rowing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disagrees with the Director's finding that his first place finish in the~I -~ 
I I and resulting I I is not evidence of an original contribution of 
major significance. The Petitioner emphasizes that he is "one of a handful of human beings who has 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
5 
dared to, and survived, .__ ________ __.in a row boat," noting that this achievement is "the 
very definition of a 'small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor."' 
While the record contains a letter from US Rowing indicating that I I rowing has fewer 
participants than other rowing disciplines, the evidence as a whole does not establish that the act of 
competing in and winning a.__ _____ __. event in C7 rowing is akin to an original athletic 
contribution of major significance. For example, I I vice president of The 
I IRowing Society, explains that her organization was established in 1983 and serves as "the 
official ad·udicator o~ I rowing records." She talks about the history of the sport and of thee==] 
---~__., and states that a win in the race is regarding as an internationally significant prize . .e=J 
founder of the company that organizes thel !indicates that "only the most 
'---~ 
accomplished athletes are capable of participating" in the race, and notes that "to compete and win in 
this race is the apex for any rower." He notes that eight world records were broken by participants in 
the 2016 race and states that "the fact that [the Petitioner] was able to break thel I 
I lin this competition shows that he is an [sic] unique and exceptional athlete." While these and 
other letters acknowledge that it was an achievement for the Petitioner to be selected for participation 
in thel I they do not explain how such participation is an "original contribution" to 
the sport or how the Beneficiary's participation had a significant impact on the sport ofrowing orD 
I I rowing. 
Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field 
and its impact on subsequent work add value. Letters that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic 
language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis 
for meeting this criterion. 4 
The record also contains several letters that more generallf attest to the Petitioner's athletic talent and 
dedication to the sport. 5 For example, a letter from rower I praises the Petitioner's physical 
conditioning, endurance, technique, and strength, noting his ability to demonstrate "self control, team 
spirit and resilience at all times, characteristics of a true rower." One of the Petitioner's former 
coaches, I I praises his "rigid self-discipline" and describes him as "one of the most 
talented, dedicated and committed athletes" he has trained. However, these letters do not demonstrate 
how his overall athletic talent and commitment to rowing constitutes an original contribution that has 
impacted the sport at a significant level. Possession of advanced athletic skills is not a contribution of 
major significance in and of itself 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets the 
requirements for this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 9. 
5 Although we discuss only some of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based on his roles with~------=--~ 
I I~---------~ and~-------~ As it relates to a leading role, the 
evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, 
can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. Regarding a critical role, the evidence must 
demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome 
of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 6 
......... ~~-· ..... ·oner submitted a letter froml I rowing manager for~-----,-,-----' 
who states that the Petitioner was "an asset tol ts Rowing Team from 2003 to 
~------' praises the Petitioner's dedication and athletic ability and lists some of best 
finishes in state, naval and national competition between 2003 and 2007. The Petitioner also provided 
a letter fro~ I o±1 I, where he served on the team in 2002-
2003 at the very beginning of his competitive career, and in 2008-2009.I I states that the 
Petitioner "set himself apart from his peers in the same age group winning notable competitions in 
Brazil such as important regattas of thel !Championship where we were consecrated 
champions of 2002." He indicates that the Petitioner "used to document new techniques and record 
his own time extensively and share across his broader team, helping everyone else become much more 
effective in the process." He concludes that the Petitioner "would be an asset to any rowing team." 
These letters indicate that the Petitioner was considered a valuable member of these rowing clubs, but 
do not show how his training techniques or his competition results establish his leading or critical role 
with either organization. The record contains supporting evidence indicating that these clubs enjoy a 
distinguished reputation in Brazil and have produced world champions and Olympic athletes, but does 
not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's successes in primarily state level competitions, some at the 
junior and novice level, contributed in a way that was of significant importance to the outcome of 
these clubs' activities. 
We also note that while the Petitioner provided statements from counsel indicating that he served as 
team captain for both of these clubs, this role is not mentioned in the Petitioner's own statements, or 
in the letters from representatives of the rowing clubs. Assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements must be substantiated in the record 
with independent evidence, which may include affidavits and declarations. 
In addition, the Petitioner claims that he held a critical role on tea ,,_ _____ -----1that was of 
significant importance to the team's success and first Qlace finish in the The record 
contains testimonial evidence from his teai;nmate I I and race organizer 
explaining the Petitioner's critical role in thel I boat's crew. However, the re._c_o-rd_d_o_e_s_n_o_.t 
establish that this team, which was formed for the sole and temporary purpose of competing in a single 
race, is an "organization or establishment" as required by the language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(iii) 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 10. 
7 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation in his field. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
As explained above, the submitted evidence satisfies only one of the regulatory criteria. As 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 listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding whether he established that he is coming 
to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" under section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii). See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is 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 
As discussed, 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. As a result, we need not provide 
the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we 
advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding 
that the Petitioner 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 the top. 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 that 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 one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act 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. 
8