dismissed EB-1A Case: Go Player

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and 1mmigratj.on 
Services 
mL1C CQ?? 
= FILE: - 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 2 1 2005 
EAC 04 064 5 3 5 80 
PETITION: Immigrant ~etitioh 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. 5 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. 
'4 
.$? Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Verrnont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) 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. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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 earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very tap level. 
This petition, filed on January 2, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a "Go Player." Counsel states: "Go is an ancient strategic board game originating in China more than 4,000 
years ago. It's played today by millions of people around the world." 
The petitioner submitted an article from the August 1, 2002 issue of The New York Times which states: "The 
game is played on a board divided into a grid of 19 horizontal and 19 vertical lines. Black and white pieces 
called stones are placed one at a time on the grid's intersections. The object is to acquire and defend territory 
by surrounding it with stones." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). 
On appeal, counsel states: "We believe that the facts that the petitioner placed the third at the Second North 
American Toyota/Denso Oza Championship in 2004 and the third in 2003 U.S. Go Congress constitutes 
conclusive evidence that he qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to 8 C.F.R. section 
204.5(h)(3) [sic]." The petitioner's third place in the "Eastern Division" at the American ToyotdDenso Oza 
Championship in 2004 occurred subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). Furthermore, we 
cannot ignore that placing third in the "Eastern Division" is reflective of regional recognition rather than 
national or international recognition. 
We do not find that the petitioner's third place at the 2003 U.S. Go Congress constitutes a major, 
internationally recognized award. Further, the 2003 U.S. Go Congress competition is national in scope rather 
than international in scope (as required by the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one-time 
achievement). The regulation permitting eligibility based on a single award must be interpreted very 
narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. 
Examples of one-time awards which enjoy truly international recognition include the Nobel Prize, the 
Academy Award, and (most relevant for athletics) the Olympic Gold Medal. These prizes are "household 
names," recognized immediately even among the general public as being the highest possible honors in their 
respective fields. Neither of the petitioner's "third place" awards meets this standard. These awards will be 
further addressed below as lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
Barring the alien's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, the regulation 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner's third place at the 2003 U.S. Go Congress open competition adequately satisfies this criterion.' 
As noted above, the petitioner's third place in the "Eastern Division" at the Second North American 
ToyotafDenso Oza Championship in 2004 was a regional award (rather than a national award) anti occurred 
subsequent to the petition's filing date. See Matter of Katigbak at 45,49. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other nzajor 
media, relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
1 Documentation in the record also refers to this competition as the "American Go Association's 2003 U.S. 
Open Go Tournament" in Houston, Texas. 
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. An alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a publication with limited 
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.2 
The petitioner submitted a brief article (only seven sentences) appearing in The Tri-State News Weekly, a 
Chinese-language newspaper published in New Jersey. Aside from the petitioner not providing the name of 
the author of this article (as required by the regulation), it has not been shown that this publication has a 
substantial national readership beyond Chinese language readership in New Jersey and two of its neighboring 
states. There is no specific data regarding The Tri-State News Weekly's volume of U.S. readership. Because 
the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population does not read or comprehend Chinese, it has not been 
shown that such a publication rises to the level of "major media." 
The petitioner also submitted local tournament results published in the "Scoreboard" section of the Spring 
2002 and Spring 2003 issues of American Go ~ourna2.~ Among these results, the petitioner is listed as 
placing third twice at the "New Jersey State Championships" (page 44 of the Spring 2002 issue and page 37 
of the Spring 2003 issue). Clearly the petitioner is not the primary subject of material presented. We cannot 
ignore that numerous other Go players from various tournaments around the country are similarly listed in the 
Scoreboard section. Winning a state tournament is not evidence of national or international acclaim. In 
addition, in the "Ratings" section of the Spring 2003 issue (page 49, the petitioner is listed as the 12" ranked 
player according to data compiled by the journal's ratings editor and American Go Association :statistician. 
Simply having one's name included in an extensive list in this manner does not constitute qualifying 
"published material about the alien." In the preceding instances, the material does not single out tht: petitioner 
from the other amateur players listed, nor does it offer any substantive discussion about his extraordinary 
achievement or national acclaim as a Go player. Furthermore, the petitioner has not provided evidence 
regarding the volume of distribution of the American Go Journal. Without quantitative data showing its 
significant national or international distribution, we cannot conclude that it qualifies as a "rrlajor trade 
publication." 
The petitioner submitted the 2003 Annual Report for the American Go Association which states (at the bottom of 
page nine) that the petitioner will chair the "Ing Grant Management" Committee. The 2003 Annual Report is 
about the association's financial status rather than the petitioner or his individual achievements. Nevertheless, 
there is no evidence showing that this report constitutes "published" material "in professional or rrlajor trade 
publications or other major media." Furthermore, we cannot ignore that the petitioner seeks c1assific:ation as a 
"Go player" not as a financial grant manager. 
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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
This section of the journal posts the results for local Go tournaments such as the "Pennsylvania Open" and the "Denver 
Fall Open." 
Counsel asserts that an American Go Association website listing the petitioner "as the Chairman of Ing Fund 
Management" should also be considered under this criterion. Inclusion on a list of approximately 30 officers 
and volunteers of the American Go Association is not qualifying "published material about the alien." If the 
petitioner himself is not the primary subject of the material, then it fails to demonstrate his individual acclaim. 
Furthermore, without quantitative evidence showing that the website listing the petitioner has substantial national 
readership, we cannot conclude that it qualifies as "major media." 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has earned sustained acclaim in the national 
media of the United States or China. 
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 alliedfield of specijication for which classification is sought. 
As previously noted, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of 
extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. For example, refereeing 
a professional Go competition at the national level (such as the national finals of the American ToyotafDenso 
Oza Championship) is of far greater probative value than refereeing a local amateur competition involving 
children. 
The petitioner submitted a December 18, 2003 letter from GO School, 
Piscataway, New Jersey. She states: "[The petitioner] . . . served as Judge for Youth Group at 1'- 
Go Tournament." Aside from this single sentence, the December 18, 2003 letter provides no further 
information regarding the above "Youth Group" competition. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a second letter fro- dated December 21, 2004, who identifies 
herself this time as a "9-dan Professional Go Player." She states: 
I would . . . like to certify that [the petitioner] served as a referee for the ~irs~outh Go 
Tournament, a national competition organized by me and named in my name. This competition is a 
national competition and is the only one of its kind in the United States. The level of competition 
represents the highest among young Go players in the country. I also certify that all the referees for this 
competition are top Go players in the United States and [the petitioner] was chosen as a referee because 
he is one of the best in the country. 
The record, however, contains no evidence to supPo- assertions. For example, national level 
competitions typically issue event programs listing the order of events, the names of all of the participating - - 
players, the teams or locations which the players represent, and their competitive rankings. At a conlpetition's 
conclusion, results are usually provided indicating how each participant performed in relation to the other 
competitors. The has provided no such evidence to suppo s assertions in 
regard to the Firs Youth Go Tournament. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that this 
competition of top Go players from throughout the U.S. (rather than mostly local 
youths from New Jersey). Nor is there supporting evidence listing the other referees and their respective Go 
rankings. We cannot ignore the statute's demand for "extensive documentation" of sustained national or 
international acclaim. We note the absence of published material or national publicity surrounding the First 
outh Go Tournament. Evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition is of greater 
weight than letters of support prepared especially for submission with the petition. Without contemporaneous 
evidence showing that the tournament involved top players from throughout the country (rather than local 
children), we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. Furthermore, we note that the petitioner 
claims eligibility under this criterion based on his refereeing of only one youth tournament. The statute and 
regulations, however, require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. We find that the petitioner's limited 
and recent referee activity is not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of a seven-sentence commentary posted on the April 14, 20011 version of 
the American Go E-Journal. We do not find that one brief game commentary constitutes "authorship of 
scholarly articles." Nevertheless, there is no evidence of the field's reaction to this brief commentary, nor any 
indication that it was widely viewed as significantly influential. Furthermore, without quantitative evidence 
showing that the American Go E-Journal has significant national or international readership, we cannot conclude 
that it qualifies as a "major trade publication." 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The record contains evidence showing that the petitioner was selected by the officers of the American Go 
Association to serve as Chair of the Ing Grant Management Committee. There is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner is an actual employee of the American Go Association. According to the American Go Association's 
Annual Report, the Ing Grant was for $80,000 in 2003 and $70,000 in 2004. There is no indicati.on that the 
petitioner held final authority over the distribution of this small grant. We cannot ignore that the petitioner's 
relationship to that of the Board of Directors (7 members) and the Officers (President, Secretary, Treasurer 
and Vice President) of the American Go Association was that of a subordinate. The record contains no 
evidence showing the extent to which the petitioner has exercised substantial control over personnel or 
operational decisions executed on behalf of the American Go Association. Nor is there evidence indicating 
that the petitioner's role was of significantly greater importance than that of the board members or executive 
officers, or the numerous other individuals who volunteer to serve for this association. 
On appeal, counsels asserts that the petitioner fulfills this criterion as the "founder, organizer and coach for 
the Highland Park Go Club in New Jersey." The petitioner's appellate submission includes a listing of 
American Go Association Chapters indicating that the petitioner is the "contact person" for the Highland Park 
Go Club chapter (which meets "every other Tues." for three hours from "Sept.-May"), but there is no 
evidence of the petitioner's role as its founder, organizer and coach. The unsupported assertions of counsel 
do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). Furthemlore, there 
is no indication that the Highland Park Go Club has distinguished itself at the national level by winning 
national team championships or consistently producing individual Go players who have won top national 
titles at the professional level. 
In sum, the evidence is not adequate to demonstrate that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role 
for a distinguished organization, or that his involvement has earned him sustained national or international 
acclaim 
On appeal, counsel states that the letters of support from past and current officials of the American Go 
Association constitute other comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(4). This regulation allows 
for the submission of comparable evidence, but only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation." Therefore, the petitioner must demonstrate that the regulatory criteria are not 
applicable to the alien's field. Of the ten criteria, more than half readily apply to the petitioner's occupation. 
Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the wording of the regulation does not 
allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
While the letters of support describe the petitioner as a skilled Go player and valued member of the American 
Go Association, they are not sufficient to show that the petitioner is nationally or internationally acclaimed. 
With regard to the personal recommendation of individuals from the American Go Association, the source of 
the recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. These letters are not first-hand evidence that the 
petitioner has earned sustained acclaim outside of this association. If the petitioner's reputation is limited to 
his affiliated institutions, then he has not achieved national or international acclaim. 
In this case, we find that the evidence satisfies only one of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
In addition to finding that the petitioner had failed to satisfy at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3), the director's decision stated: 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) [of the Act] requires that the alien seek to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability. . . . [The petitioner] was playing in amateur level Go 
tournaments and was apparently serving as the Chair of the Ing Fund Committee on an unpaid basis. 
There is no indication that Go playing ever constituted the [petitioner's] "work," and despite the fact 
that an employment-based classification is being requested, the record does not suggest that this will be 
the case in the future. 
On appeal, counsel states: "We contend that the Center Director's above statement is an overly restrictive and 
incorrect interpretation of the requirement that a beneficiary of the EB-1 extraordinary ability petition will 
continue to work in the field of endeavor in the United States." Counsel notes correctly in his appellate brief 
that a job offer is not required for this classification. The director's decision, however, does not cite the 
absence of a job offer as a basis for denial. 
As noted by the director, section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act requires that "the alien seeks to enter ]:he United 
States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." The petitioner's intention to continue playing Go 
is not in dispute; the record shows that the petitioner has recently participated in various competitions. More 
relevant is the issue of whether employment as a Go player will be the petitioner's primary occupation and 
source of income. Because the petitioner seeks an employment-based immigrant classification based on his 
Go playing skills, it is reasonable to require evidence that the petitioner has been and will continue to support 
himself principally as a Go player through competitive prize money (rather than competing in his spare time 
while supporting himself through unrelated employment). We cannot ignore the substantial evidence 
indicating that there are a number of professional Go players in the United States who earn significant sums 
of prize money at both the national and international leveL4 Furthermore, in a December 30, 2003 letter 
accompanying the petition, counsel observes: "Millions of dollars in prize money change hands every year." 
In this matter, it should be emphasized that the petitioner seeks an employment-based visa. The evidence of 
record fails to show that the petitioner has been and will continue to support himself primarily through his 
skills as a Go player. 
Counsel further states: 
As we previously stated, in addition to only a few professional sports, participants in most sporting 
events in the world are amateur athletes such as most events in the Olympics. In the United States, 
except the National Football League, the National Basketball League, the Major League Baseball [sic], 
the National Hockey League and a couple of other sporting events, the majority of sporting events are 
participated by [sic] amateur players including the most celebrated athletes in most recent sporting 
events such as-, the 6 gold medals swimming winner at 2004 Athens Olympics. Most 
athletes in this country have their regular employment but they consider participating in their respective 
sporting events their work even though they are not paid or employed by anyone. Therefore, it is very 
clear that the Center Director's finding concerning the petitioner's work in this present case is an overly 
restrictive and incorrect interpretation of the statute and applicable regulation. 
Counsel's argument is not persuasive. The fact that professional Go players clearly exist in the U.S. and 
abroad significantly undermines counsel's argument. As shown by the evidence in this case, the game of Go 
provides ample compensation to those professionals who compete successfully at the national and 
international level. Counsel's argument comparing Olympians to amateur game players is also seriously 
flawed. An Olympic victory indubitably represents the highest level of achievement in competitive athletics. 
The same cannot be said, however, of a victory in an amateur Go tournament. Beyond the amateur Go player 
level, there exists the professional level, which, according to the evidence of record. remesents the highest - 0 
level of achievement in Go playing. Furthermore, counsel's observation that -a U.S . swimmer 
who won multiple gold medals at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece, is an amateur" athlete is incorrect. 
- - 
is "paid" significantly high other U.S. corporations 
Furthermore, unlike the petitioner, is a "household name," 
recognized immediately even among the general public 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner's evidence fails to satisfy the statutory 
requirement at section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
4 For example, according to Exhibit I of the appellate submission, a-e the North American 
representatives to the 2nd ToyotajDenso North American Oza Tournament and will play for $300,000 and a new Lexus." 
Page 9 
In conclusion, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be 
satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability, or that he will "work in the area of extraordinary ability." 
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 the 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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.