dismissed EB-1A Case: Figure Skating

identilying data deleted to 
prevent ckarly unwananted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrat~ve Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 07 070 51787 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. The director determined that the record did not establish that the petitioner had achieved the sustained 
national or international acclaim required for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director also 
found the petitioner had not established that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
his field of endeavor or that he will provide a substantial benefit to the United States. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) 
 the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As 
used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, 
that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on January 8, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
figure skater. Initially, the petitioner submitted information about the International Skating Union ("ISU") and 
Bulgarian Skating Federation ("BSF"), awards won, letters of recommendation, and information about his 
educational accomplishments. In response to the February 12, 2008 Request for Evidence ("RFE"), the 
petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in BSF, additional information about the ISU, and additional 
letters of recommendation. On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional letters of recommendation and a letter 
from the Council of Ministers State Agency for Youth and Sports about the petitioner's past achievements. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). 
Barring the alien's receipt of a such an award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would 
not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). We address the evidence submitted and counsel's contentions in the following discussion of the 
regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim 
and the record does not establish the petitioner's eligibility under any criteria not addressed below. 
(i) Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in thejield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he won 3'* place in category I1 of the 2000 Bulgarian National 
Competition "Prize Victoria," 4' place in the 2001 Yugoslav Cup "Helena Pajovic," 1" place in category I1 of 
the 2003 Bulgarian National Competition "Prize Victoria," 16' place in the 2003 ISU Junior Grand Prix of 
Figure Skating Series, 15' place in the 2003 Croatia Cup (including 12' place in the short program), 1" place in 
category I1 of the 2003 Bulgarian National Tournament, 1" place in category I1 at the 2004 Bulgarian National 
Championship of Figure Skating, 2nd place in category I1 at the 2004 Bulgarian National Competition "Prize 
Victoria," 4' place in the 2004 ISU Junior Grand Prix of Figure Skating Series, 1" place in category I1 of the 
2005 Bulgarian National Tournament, 20' place at the 2005 Junior ISU JPG Sofia Cup, lSt place in category I1 
of the 2005 Bulgarian National Competition "Prize Victoria," and 2nd place in category I1 of the 2006 Bulgarian 
National Championships. 
The petitioner also submitted certificates of participation from the 2004 World Junior Figure Skating 
Championship and 200512006 ISU Junior Grand Prix of Figure Skating. Certifications of participation do not 
amount to prizes or awards. 
Although documentation of the petitioner's receipt of these various awards appears in the record, these 
competitions all appear to be limited to "junior" participants. The petitioner presented no evidence to show 
how, if a competition is restricted to competitors in terms of age or experience, the award would constitute an 
award for excellence in the field if it did not allow competition among all participants in the field. 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. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.' 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter 
of Racine, 1995 WL 1533 19 at "4 (N.D. 111. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
Therefore, it does not follow that a competitor like the petitioner who has success in competitions limited by his 
age or experience should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. On 
appeal, counsel argues that the awards were given by the ISU, which "is the most prestigious skating 
organization in the world." The reputation of the awarding organization is not necessarily indicative of the 
recognition given to a specific award from a particular competition overseen by that organization. The burden is 
on the petitioner to show that winning awards at these contests conveys national or international recognition, 
however, no evidence appears in the record evidencing such acclaim. As noted above, while we do not dispute 
the reputation of the ISU, the fact remains that the petitioner's awards were at a level limited by his junior status 
and therefore not indicative of qualification for this category. 
The same analysis also applies to the BSF competitions in which the petitioner received awards in category 11. 
The petitioner provides no evidence explaining who is eligible to compete under category 11, which took place 
during the same time period in which the petitioner was competing in other "junior" competitions. The letter 
from the Bulgarian Council of Ministers states that the petitioner won medals in "a National Championship," 
but the petitioner submitted no evidence that this tournament conveys the Bulgarian national champion title or 
otherwise conveys national or international acclaim upon the recipient. The ISU record submitted reflects that 
the petitioner won 4th place in 2004 and 2005 and 3'* place in 2006 at the Bulgarian national championships. 
The petitioner submitted no evidence that such placement conveys national or international acclaim or that it 
conveyed the national title. We note that the ISU record seems to relay the petitioner's receipt of junior titles. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thejeld for which classlJication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the 
association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, 
proficiency certifications, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or 
current members, or payment of dues, do not satis@ this criterion as such requirements do not constitute 
outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue 
here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, 
Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent 
with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 
1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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's interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) is 
reasonable. 
We acknowledge that membership on an Olympic team or a major national team such as a World Cup soccer 
team may serve to meet this criterion as such teams are limited in the number of members and have a 
rigorous selection process. We reiterate, however, that it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that he meets 
every element of a given criterion, including that he is a member of a team that requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. We will not presume 
that every national "team" is sufficiently exclusive. The letter from the Bulgarian Council of Ministers vaguely 
states that the petitioner was "accepted in the National team for juveniles and youths" on an unidentified date. 
This letter indicates that only younger, less experienced athletes will qualify for the team rather than the team 
being open to all of those participating in the field, including those at the very top of the field. As previously 
indicated, USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 953, 954; 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. 
As such, the petitioner cannot establish that he meets this criterion based on his membership in the BSF or 
the Bulgarian national team as a junior athlete as such membership is not indicative of the acclaim required 
by this highly restrictive immigrant classification. 
The petitioner also presented evidence that he is a member of the skating club "Slavia." The petitioner, 
however, submitted no evidence such as membership qualifications for this organization to establish that 
outstanding achievements are prerequisites to membership or that membership applications are judged by 
recognized experts in the field. Counsel states that as the BSF is affiliated with the ISU and bound by its rules 
and regulations, it requires outstanding achievement of its members. The ISU Constitution sets forth the 
requirements for member bodies (each country may have only one member as recognized by the national 
Olympic committee of that nation and that member must control either figure skating, speed skating, or both and 
must conduct regular national championships), but contains no requirements for skaters affiliated with the 
member bodies. Counsel also claimed that the petitioner was eligible under this criterion by virtue of his 
membership in the ISU. Counsel argued that the petitioner held membership in the ISU through his membership 
in the BSF as the BSF is a member organization of the ISU. The petitioner's eligibility based on membership in 
the BSF is discussed above. The ISU Constitution contains no provision providing for individual membership 
in the organization. As such, the petitioner failed to show membership in the ISU and also failed to show that 
membership in the ISU is predicated upon outstanding achievement. 
For all of the above reasons, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
(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 classz$cation 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 generally have significant national or international distribution. An alien 
would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York 
Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
2 
 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. 
Page 6 
In response to the RFE, counsel stated that the petitioner demonstrated eligibility under this criterion through his 
appearance on Wikipedia and on the ISU "Crystal Report Viewer." Counsel further stated that "skating is rarely 
covered in the media[, tlhus any mention of skaters in the media is extraordinary." The director found that the 
"brief biographies [found on these two websites] are not sufficient to satisfy this criterion. Further, the Service 
is not persuaded, nor does the record establish, that the sources identified can be considered commensurate with 
major media." Counsel on appeal does not dispute this finding. Upon review, we concur with the director. 
With regard to the information posted on Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content 
from this open, user-edited internet site.3 In addition, the petitioner provided no information about the nature of 
Wikipedia as a publication so as to show that it amounts to a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media. The excerpt from the "Crystal Report Viewer" is not an article, but is instead an official record of 
the petitioner's accomplishments as kept by the regulating body. To this end, the petitioner submitted no 
information regarding the "Crystal Report Viewer" such as circulation statistics or other information indicating 
that it is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien S work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Although the petitioner claimed that this criterion applied, without elaboration, at the time of filing, no 
discussion appears in the director's decision. The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de 
novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers 
which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see 
also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets this criterion because "a figure skater displays his art for an 
audience." In support of this assertion, counsel cites an unpublished decision of the AAO involving a cellist. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.4(c), designated and published decisions of the AAO are binding precedent on all 
Service employees in the administration of the Act. However, unpublished decisions have no such precedential 
value. In that decision, we noted that even if we were to accept the programs from performances as comparable 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary 
association of individuals and groups working to deve1op.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/wiki/Wikipedia:Disclaimers, accessed on April 20,2009 (and added to the record 
of proceeding). 
Page 7 
evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), that the evidence provided was insufficient to 
demonstrate the cellist's eligibility under this criterion. Much like the petitioner in this case, the cellist was "not 
listed as a principal or featured soloist" nor did the cellist or this petitioner submit "evidence that any of these 
performances won critical acclaim or media coverage indicative of . . . sustained national or international 
acclaim." 
As counsel acknowledges, the plain language of this criterion reveals that it relates to the visual arts, such as 
sculptors and painters, rather than to figure skating competitions or performances. The ten criteria in the 
regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. The 
petitioner's participation and success in figure skating contests has previously been addressed under the awards 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Virtually every athlete "displays" his work in the sense of competing in 
front of an audience. Although figure skating includes an artistic element, it requires athletic prowess and skill. 
Other athletic pursuits such as gymnastics also contain artistic elements, however, counsel has not shown how 
an athletic event which contains artistic elements amounts to a purely artistic endeavor such as sculpting or 
performing a musical piece on a cello. The petitioner has not established that his participation in competitions 
compares to the artistic showcases contemplated by the regulation for visual artists. 
As such, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
The director also determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the petitioner's admission will 
substantially benefit the United States as he intends to continue competing for Bulgaria. On appeal, the 
petitioner submitted a letter from setting forth a schedule of figure skating events in which the 
petitioner intends to compete. This letter is sufficient to establish that the petitioner intends to continue working 
in his area of expertise. Neither that letter nor any other evidence in the record suggests, however, that the 
petitioner intends to compete as a member of the United States team. The record does not establish how the 
petitioner's intention to continue competing for Bulgaria will provide a substantial prospective benefit to the 
U.S. Counsel's brief on appeal states that admission of the petitioner benefits the United States insofar as it 
demonstrates that the United States is a welcoming training ground. The petitioner submits no evidence to show 
how his training in the United States will be publicized in such a way so as to benefit the United States. An 
athlete that competes for a country wears that country's uniform and is identifiable as a member of that 
country's team; an athlete's training grounds are not so readily advertised. As such, we agree with the director 
that the petitioner did not present evidence that his admission would convey a substantial prospective benefit for 
the United States. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at 
the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly 
above almost all others in his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternative 
basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.