dismissed EB-1A Case: Freestyle Wrestling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 6, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a freestyle wrestler, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that while the 
Petitioner submitted the initial evidence required for the classification sought, the documentation 
was not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a new letter and 
maintains that the Director did not afford sufficient weight to the evidence in the record. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
By statute, the extraordinary ability immigrant visa classification requires that foreign nationals 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and present extensive documentation of their 
achievements. 
Specifically, section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act explains that a foreign national 1s described as an 
individual 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 
Matter of M-C-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The implementing regulation defines the term "extraordinary ability" as referring only to those 
individuals in that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). To meet this definition, the 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 achievements 
in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he must provide sufficient qualifying evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 
1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) proper 
application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 
131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for 
relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of 
the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
Finally, with respect to foreign language documentation, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) 
requires that such evidence be accompanied by a certification from the translator regarding the 
completeness and accuracy of the translation as well as the translator's competency to perform the 
translation. 
II. ANALYSIS 
On November 10, 2014, the Petitioner filed a Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. The 
Director determined that while the Petitioner had met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the totality of the evidence was insufficient to establish his eligibility. On 
appeal, the Petitioner offers a brief and a new letter. 
The Director determined the Petitioner satisfied the regulatory criteria relating to ( 1) his prizes or 
awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (2) published material about him at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
and (3) his participation as a judge of the work of others at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). While we 
have some concerns about the significance of the evidence relating to these criteria, we prefer to 
address those concerns in the final merits determination, which was the sole basis of the Director's 
decision. First, however, we will address the Petitioner's concerns regarding notice and 
inconsistencies in the Director's decision. Next, we will address the Petitioner's position that the 
structure of the Director's analysis was a due process error. Finally, we will consider all of the 
2 
Matter of M-C-
Petitioner's submissions in the aggregate. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof; he has not shown that the evidence in the 
aggregate is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
A. Sufficient Notice in the Request for Evidence (RFE) 
Within the appeal brief the Petitioner maintains that the Director served an extensive RFE "that 
contained no mention of the need to provide additional proof of 'sustained acclaim."' A review of 
the Director's RFE reflects that the Petitioner was notified that satisfying at least three criteria was 
only the first step in demonstrating his eligibility and the Director gave a detailed discussion of the 
standard and the requirements the Petitioner must meet to qualify for this immigrant classification. 
Specifically, the Director noted on pages eight and nine of the RFE that "meeting the minimum 
regulatory criteria outlined above, alone will not establish eligibility for the Ell immigrant 
classification." The RFE further advised that the Petitioner must verify "sustained national or 
international acclaim," and show recognized achievements that "indicat[ e] that [he] is one of that 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
B. Inconsistencies in the Director's Decision 
The Petitioner's appeal brief also characterizes the Director's decision as confused. Specifically, the 
brief maintains that the Director stated that the Petitioner met three criteria, satisfying the first part of 
the adjudication process, but "in the end denies [his] own determination of established conclusion." 
On page three of the Director's decision, the Director listed the three criteria he determined the 
Petitioner satisfied, then indicated that even though the record contained evidence relating to 
additional criteria, that the Petitioner's filings did not satisfy those additional regulatory 
requirements; namely, the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and the leading or 
critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). In his final merits determination, the Director 
considered the entire record and determined that the Petitioner had not shown sustained acclaim or 
recognized achievement. In his final merits determination, the Director reviewed documentation that 
the Petitioner stated on appeal that the Director had overlooked, including the Petitioner's selection 
to a national team and participation as a judge or referee in wrestling competitions. 
C. Due Process 
The Petitioner states that the final merits determination, in which USCIS examines the record as a 
whole to determinate whether a petitioner qualifies for the exclusive classification, violates his 
constitutional rights to due process, equal protection and fundamental fairness. While the Petitioner 
cites several federal cases for the proposition that immigration proceedings must afford individuals 
due process, he does not cite any legal authority for the principle that reviewing the record in its 
entirety is a violation of that process. On the contrary, federal courts have consistently found that 
users may conduct a final merits determination after a petitioner meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). In Kazarian, the federal circuit court 
discussed the two-part review, noting that where a petitioner meets the required number of criteria, 
3 
Matter of M-C-
users may then consider his eligibility for the classification in the context of a final merits 
determination. 596 F.3d at 1119-20; see also Rijal, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 1339; Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 
3d at 131-32; Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954-56 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (finding, based on 
the totality of the record, that a golfer had demonstrated that he was within the small percentage of 
individuals who have risen to the very top of the field of golf). We find these cases to be persuasive 
authority that users may examine the qualitative nature of the evidence once a petitioner produces 
the requisite number of documents. 
D. Final Merits Determination for the Present Case 
1. Standard of Review 
With respect to the Petitioner's position that there exists insufficient guidance on the final merits 
determination, such guidance comes from both users policy memorandum I as well as the Kazarian 
decision. Specifically, once a petitioner has met the requisite production requirements, we tum to an 
examination of the totality of the record, including items that do not fall under the criteria the 
petitioner meets, to see if the individual has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
(1) he or she has sustained national or international acclaim, and (2) has achievements recognized in 
the field, making him or her one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. If so, a petitioner has met the requisite burden of proof and established eligibility for visa 
classification as an individual "of extraordinary ability." See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
More specifically, the Petitioner maintains on appeal that the Director failed to grasp the 
fundamental point of the final merits determination, that the Petitioner is not judged by some 
amorphous standard, but in comparison to the "ordinary or average freestyle wrestler." The 
Petitioner provides the following quote in support of his position: "The language of the Policy 
Memo indicates that the USCIS officer must assess 'whether or not the petitioner, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, has demonstrated that the alien has a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. "'2 However, a 
review of the memorandum reveals that this quote relates to foreign nationals of exceptional ability 
under § 203(b )(2) of the Act, instead of the higher preference classification for those of 
extraordinary ability under§ 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The same memorandum, on page 13, explains 
that in a final merits determination for extraordinary ability cases, USCIS considers whether the 
foreign national "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements 
have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the alien is one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) 
1 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 23 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https:/ /www. uscis.gov /sites/default/files/U SCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-1. pdf 
2 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 23. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-C-
(defining extraordinary ability as a level of expertise reflecting that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor). 
2. Review of the Evidence 
a. Awards 
The record contains several awards, many of which the Petitioner won in junior or youth competitions. 
The Petitioner did not submit certified translations of the foreign language certificates as required under 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Without translations that comply with that regulation, the award documentation 
has no probative value. Regardless, it is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that awards won in age­
limited competitions are indicative of status among the top of the field, including the most experienced 
wrestlers. 
The record includes several expert letters that provided a list of or described the Petitioner's prizes and 
awards.3 The letters offered within the initial petition filing from the following individuals contain 
either large portions of identical or virtually identical language consistent with a common source: 
If testimonial material lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for 
the Petitioner to furnish corroborative items. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). USers 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). However, USers is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. Most 
significantly, users need not accept primarily conclusory affirmations. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney 
General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). All ofthe initial letters introduced the 
list of the Petitioner's awards by characterizing them as "National and International Awards, Prizes and 
Distinctions" and "major awards" at the national level. These unsupported conclusory statements do 
not establish that the awards are indicative of sustained acclaim or awards that place the Petitioner 
within the small percentage at the top of his field. 
In response to the RFE the Petitioner submitted additional letters pertaining to his awards, including a 
second letter from , dated May 20, 2015, and one from dated May 
25,2015. 4 As with the initial letters, these two letters also contain large portions of identical or virtually 
identical language regarding each affiant's personal knowledge of the Petitioner's experience and 
achievements. Again, these letters are conclusory, both stating: "[The Petitioner] has received major 
nationally and internationally recognized prizes and awards, as below detailed. These prizes are 
awarded on an annual basis and the competitors are chosen from the best wrestlers in their respective 
countries." Finally, in a new letter filed with the appeal, and 
3 These letters are supported by referrals attesting to the accomplishments of the Petitioner's references that contain 
marks outlining the "Re:" section, which is in a different font and sometimes not aligned with the remainder of the letter. 
4 The letter bearing the letterhead of contains the following information below the signature: "Mr. ----­
-" and the signature itself is illegible. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-C-
confirms that the Petitioner's awards 
are "major national awards" that are a "clear indication that [the Petitioner] achieved sustained 
acclaim." As discussed, primarily conclusory statements are insufficient. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 
15. In addition, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
Petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
aff'd , 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 
188942, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). 
In addition to the letters, the Petitioner also offered printouts from Wikipedia relating to the 
and the With regard to information from Wikipedia, 
there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site. 5 
See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 901-11 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore , this documentation carries 
limited evidentiary weight within the present proceedings. 
Finally, as noted by the Director, the most significant awards the Petitioner documented predate the 
filing by several years. While the Petitioner maintains on appeal that the age of the awards is not 
relevant if the Petitioner remains acclaimed, it is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that he has 
sustained any acclaim he may have once enjoyed. For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his 
burden of proof to show that his awards are indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at 
the time of filing or status among the small percentage at the top of the field. 
b. Membership 
In the initial filing statement, the Petitioner listed his memberships as the head coach of 
from 2001 through 2014, a member of the _ since 2002, and a member of 
the since 2005. The Petitioner has not established that holding the position 
of a head coach of a team constitutes membership. The record also lacks information relating to the 
or the , or corroboration that admission to these clubs is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained acclaim. 
The letters the Petitioner submitted within the initial filing provided that he had been on the 
since 2005. Letters filed in response to the RFE, including letters from and 
indicated that the Petitioner was on the national team from 2001 until 2010. While 
the Petitioner supplied identification from the that listed his 
"position" as a member of the national team from May 14, 2013, to May 14, 2015, the Petitioner did not 
provide a certified translation of this item as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, this 
5 Wikipedia is subject to a disclaimer explaining that the website "allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its 
content" and its content has not "necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise . .. . Wikipedia cannot 
guarantee the validity of the information found here." The website organizers allow the content of any given article to be 
"changed , vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the 
relevant fields." See http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Wikipedia :General_disclaimer, accessed on April 4, 2016, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding . 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-C-
identification has no probative value. The Petitioner's resume reflected that he was a "[s]pecialized 
athlete of [the] National Olympic team for the [sic] from , and on the 
national team between Because the Petitioner has included conflicting information, 
his statement attempting to explain or reconcile the dissimilarities will not be sufficient to meet his 
burden of proof. The Petitioner should offer independent, objective evidence that establishes the 
actual facts surrounding the issue. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The record also contains a letter dated September 16, 2014, from 
was a member of the 
the 
stated that the Petitioner 
and achieved a 
good results [sic] at national and international tournaments." This information does not correlate 
with the information within the Petitioner's resume, which did not list any participation on the 
in 2014, nor did it reflect any athletic activity in in 2014. It is the 
Petitioner's burden to clarify any inconsistencies in the record with independent objective evidence. 
See Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 591-92. The record also does not include Olympic credentials for in 
to corroborate his resume. Rather, the record contains an identification confirming the 
Petitioner's participation in the qualifying Olympic tournament in m Here, the Petitioner 
has not resolved the issue and corroborated the contents of letter. 
Finally, the record also contains photocopies of an identification badge from the 
The Petitioner has not offered the bylaws or other official 
material of this association's membership criteria, which could reveal if this membership is indicative of 
national or international acclaim. In light of the above, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof in 
showing that his memberships are consistent with the requisite level of acclaim. 
c. Published Material 
With regard to the published material about the Petitioner, we find that the evidence does not show that 
he is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very top in the field of freestyle wrestling, or that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Initially the Petitioner submitted a cutout 
from a newspaper, indicating that the article was from the newspaper,
6 
published on 
, 2006, titled He also filed a 
article and an English translation. This translation lacked the 
required translator's certification, certifying the completeness or accuracy of the translation, or the 
translator's competence to translate the atiicle into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). l11e fmal item 
consisted of a foreign language pamphlet listing the athletes on the 
However, this pamphlet is not a published professional or major trade publication, or other major 
media. 
6 The record include s an alternate spelling for the publication, 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-C-
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner offered retranslations of previously filed published materials and 
foreign language letters from and The submitted 
translations included a "Translated and verified at Translation bureau" notation, but lacked a translation 
certification that met the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Specifically, the Petitioner 
did not provide a certificate affirming the completeness or accuracy of the translations, or the 
translator's competency. Significantly, the Petitioner has not established that either or 
the is a professional, major trade publication, or major media. The 
Petitioner has not supplied information about the . According to an English 
language letter from the newspaper printed 18,000 
copies a week and was delivered to readers in nine districts and 21 provinces in Mongolia. The record 
lacks information relating to other Mongolian newspapers, such that he has met his burden of proof in 
showing that coverage in this newspaper is reflective of national or international acclaim.7 
In his RFE response, the Petitioner also submitted a 2006 photograph caption, 
indicating that he had been selected for The translation of the piece did not 
meet the regulatory requirements for items in a foreign language. In addition, as discussed, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that ~ ~ is a professional or major trade publication, or 
major media. Ultimately, an article published in 2001 when he was years old, and a photograph 
caption published in 2006 amounts to limited media attention on the Petitioner's accomplishments. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof in showing that his media coverage is 
consistent with a finding of sustained national or international acclaim. 
d. Judging 
The nature of the Petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether it is indicative 
of his national or international acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. In response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner submitted the letters from and As discussed, these letters 
contain extremely similar and conclusory statements. The Petitioner also presented a 
, noting that he was a referee between 2013 and 2015. 
The record also contains an undated letter from a 
who indicated that he supervised the Petitioner's "act[ing] as a judge" at competitions," 
including state and youth competitions. The Petitioner, however, did not supply documentation 
detailing what duties he performed as a referee. For example, the record does not confirm whether the 
Petitioner was responsible for assigning scores, or simply enforcing the rules, or the significance of the 
competitions where he served. Similarly, who has offered the Petitioner employment at 
the in Illinois, provided in a May 25, 2015, letter that the Petitioner had 
7 In a second letter from for which the Petitioner supplied a translation but not the original foreign 
language version, referenced a second article titled, The 
record does not include a copy of this article or an English translation of an article with the same title. According to 
the second article shared the same author, publisher, and publishing date as 
and may be the same article with different translated titles. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-C-
experience as a referee and could "be called upon to referee matches," without including specific 
information on what he did as a referee. 
The Petitioner's experience as a referee for competitiOns in 2013 and 2014 of undocumented 
significance falls short of exhibiting an extensive judging experience, or that the Petitioner's experience 
is commensurate with achieving a level of expertise signifying that he is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of his field. 
e. Leading or Critical Role 
In the initial filing statement, the Petitioner listed his leading and critical roles in the same organizations 
as his memberships discussed above, and he relied on the same letters that contained identical, 
conclusory language as well as conflicting information. Even if the Petitioner had submitted probative 
evidence relating to his roles for the three organizations or establislunents, he has not demonstrated the 
duties he performed for each organization, nor has he shown that the organizations enjoy a 
distinguished reputation. The documentation furnished by the Petitioner does not meet his burden of 
proof through a showing of sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofhis field. 
f. Other Evidence 
The Petitioner also maintains that the Director ignored proof of sustained acclaim. A review of a 
new letter submitted on appeal from reflects several awards the Petitioner received 
between 2005 and 2014. Although the Petitioner argues he offered evidence of these same awards 
within the initial filing, a review of the record reveals that the Petitioner presented insufficient 
translations for the awards listed in letter. This new letter does not confirm the 
Petitioner's acclaim as it merely lists the awards and concludes with little explanation that they are 
"major national awards" and that the Petitioner is a "top sportsman." As noted above, we need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. In addition, merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108; Avyr A ssociates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 , at *5. 
Accordingly, this other evidence does not meet the Petitioner 's burden of proof by showing that he 
enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. 
g. Summary 
In summary, considering the full measure of the Petitioner's ability and achievements, the level of his 
national or international acclaim, and the extent to which his achievements have been recognized in the 
field are not indicative of a record of sustained acclaim. Also, he has not submitted extensive 
documentation meeting his burden of proof by exhibiting that he has attained a level of expertise 
placing him among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
9 
Matter of M-C-
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a finding of extraordinary ability must demonstrate that 
the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 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. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-C-, ID# 16031 (AAO Apr. 6, 20 16) 
10