dismissed EB-1A Case: Golf

identifLing data &leterl to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invwi01f @~~y 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 06 164 5091 8 
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. 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. 
v 
sobert P, Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or intemational acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we 
uphold the director's decision. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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, 60898-9 (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. 8 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or intemational acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a golfer. At the 
outset, we note that the reference letters speak more to the petitioner's potential than his current status 
as a top player. 
 For example, 
 Golf School confirms that the 
** - 
petitioner booked 50 hours worth of lessons at the school. attests to the petitioner's 
"potential," concluding that he will benefit from training in the United .States to "achieve domination in 
the Asian Tour and possibly, even making the US PGA tour." a member of the PGA tour 
and the petitioner's former fellow student at Brigham Young University, also attests to the petitioner's 
"potential," concluding that the petitioner "has the stuff to make it on the P.G.A. tour." While the 
petitioner's references and evidence in the record suggest that the petitioner can obtain better training 
and support in the United States than in his native country, we concur with the director that the 
classification sought is limited to those who have already reached the top of their field, not those merely 
deemed to have the potential to make it there. 
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, international 
recognized award). Counsel asserts for the first time on appeal that the petitioner has demonstrated a 
one-time achievement based on his winning international junior competitions. Specifically, in the 
19803, the petitioner won the Junior World Championship in San Diego once each in the following 
age categories: 9-10, 11-12 and 13-14. 
Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101 -723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser 
internationally recognized award could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an 
alien must meet at least three. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the 
example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality 
of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. While an 
internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting 
all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award must be 
internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
A junior tournament, limited only to young golfers and, necessarily, excluding the most experienced 
and renowned members of the field, cannot be said to be a major internationally recognized award. 
While winners of these tournaments may go on to be nationally or internationally acclaimed, the junior 
tournament itself is not a one-time achievement such that junior tournament winners need not submit 
evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. 
Barring the alien's receipt of such an 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 
Page 4 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following 
criteria. ' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
As stated above, the petitioner won the Junior World Championship in his age group three times in 
198 1, 1983 and 1985. The petitioner also placed 19 in the College All-America Golf Classic in 1990. 
The petitioner submitted a plaque listing all of his junior accomplishments from age 7 to 17 and 
photographs of several junior level trophies. In 1985, the petitioner was listed as one of the top three 
junior golfers for the Junior All-America Team by Golf: These awards end in 1988, 18 years before the 
petition was filed. 
The record also includes several photographs of other trophies and plaques. The legible photographs 
demonstrate the following awards: 
1. The 1990 South East Asia Amateur Golf Team Championship Putra Cup presented by the 
Singapore Golf Association, 
2. Champion of the 1990 Sun Devil Thunderbird Invitational, a collegiate event, 
3. Medal of unknown rank in the 1990 Asian Games, 
4. Sixth and Seventh Place finishes at the Men's Golf All Conference of the Western Athletic 
Conference in 199 1 and 1 992, 
5. Bronze medal in the Asian Games in Beij ing in January 1 99 1, 
6. Winner of the 1994 Pro Division at the up Matches in Hawaii and 
7. Pro-Am Winner at the Volvo Masters in Malaysia on August 9,2000. 
Finally, counsel asserts that the petitioner's scholarship to attend 
 University serves to 
meet this criterion. 
 Head Golf Coach at University, confirms that 
the petitioner attended the school on a golf scholarship. We are not persuaded, however, that a 
scholarship is an award or prize. 
The record contains no evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards after 
August 2000, nearly six years before the petition was filed. Moreover, in the 15 years prior to the filing 
of the petition, the petitioner won only two awards. The record contains no evidence regarding the 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 5 
significance of the Pro-Am tournament at the Volvo Masters in Malaysia or the Pro Division of the 
Jack Nicklaus Cup in Hawaii. Significantly, the record contains no press coverage of either event. We 
note that the 2003 article submitted in response to the director's request for additional evidence states 
that the petitioner was still ursuing a "breakthrough victory." Even if we concluded that the Volvo 
Masters or the 4 Cup is a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award, the record 
still lacks evidence of any prizes or awards after August 9,2000. Thus, the evidence submitted to meet 
this criterion is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim as of the filing date 
in this matter, April 26,2006. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that the following 
memberships serve to meet this criterion: 
1. The National Golf Association of the Philippines, 
2. The Touring Professional Golfers' Association of the Philippines (TPGAP), 
3. The Asian Professional Golfer's Association (PGA) and 
4. Division 1 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Golf Team. 
The petitioner submitted his membership card for the Asian PGA and materials about the association. 
The materials, however, do not provide any information about membership in the association. - 
General of TPGAP, confirms that the petitioner has been a member since 1994. 
asserts that the petitioner is one of their top professionals, he does not provide the 
official requirements for membership in TPGAP. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that the above 
associations only admit the top golfers. On appeal, counsel asserts that membership in these 
associations is "similar or equivalent" to selection for an Olympic team. The assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 1 9 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). Without additional information from the associations themselves, the petitioner cannot establish 
that these memberships signify anything other than his eligibility to play either professional or 
collegiate golf. 
The supplementary information at 56 Fed. Reg. 60899 (Nov. 29, 1991) states: 
Page 6 
The Service disagrees that all athletes performing at the major league level should 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. . . . A blanket rule for all major 
league athletes would contravene Congress' intent to reserve this category to "that small 
percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Thus, merely being eligible to play professionally is not evidence of eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. 
The record also contains letters from 
 Executive Officer of the National Golf Association of 
the Philippines, certifying that the petitioner "has been many times a member of the Philippine National 
Golf Team which represented the Philippines in different international competitions like the World 
Amateur Team Championships (Eisenhower Cup), Asian Games, APGC Amateur Golf Team 
Championships (Nomura Cup), SEA Games and Southeast Asia Amateur Golf Team Championships 
(Putra Cup)." The attached profile, however, certified by ists no national teams after 1992. 
In light of the above, the evidence submitted to meet this criterion is not indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted English language Filipino newspaper and magazine articles from 1981 
through 1988. The petitioner also submitted foreign language articles from unknown publications on 
unknown dates. Foreign language published material must be accompanied by complete certified 
translations. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). As such translations are not part of the 
record, we will not consider these materials. The petitioner also submitted references to himself in 
1998 through 1990 University publications (where the petitioner was a student at the 
time) and a May 1990 issue of the Utah County Journal. 
While some of the Filipino articles are about tournaments and mention the petitioner only in the context 
of providing the results of the tournament, many of the 1980's Filipino articles are about the petitioner 
himself. All of these articles, however, predate the petition by 18 years. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a June 23, 2006 
article in The Record, a newspaper that serves Central Valley in California where the petitioner is now 
residing. The article is clearly about the petitioner and his move to California from the Philippines to 
Nevertheless, the article postdates the filing of the petition and cannot be 
eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). Regardless, the petitioner did not submit any evidence that 
this local publication can be considered major media in the United States. 
Page 7 
The etitioner also submitted a July 14,2006 article in The Manila Times about%- 
d The article includes the sentence: "~uriousl~,ill be up against players 
of Filipino lineage in their bid to give Team Philippines its first twin-kill sinceand 
ow professionals, won the boys class A and Class B titles in 1985." This article is not 
"about" the petitioner. Moreover, the article also postdates the filing of the petition and cannot 
establish the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. The petitioner also submitted an undated article posted on the Asia Professional 
Golfers Association's website. This article is about the Filipino Junior Golf Foundation, JUNGOLF. 
The petitioner is named as one of the professional golfers to come out of JUNGOLF, but the article is 
clearly not "about" the petitioner. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a 2003 article on the Inquirer News Services' website. The article is 
about 
 and mentions his friendship in college with the petitioner. Significantly, while the 
article notes that the petitioner was ranked higher than in college, the petitioner is quoted as 
saying, "We have changed positions now . . . I can only doff my hat to him." The article fiu-ther 
acknowledges that the petitioner has turned professional "and continues to pound the Asian golf scene 
- in search of a breakthrough victory." 
The director concluded that the published material appeared in newspapers, not "professional" 
publications. On appeal, counsel asserts that newspapers are major media and notes that the petitioner 
was also covered in magazines. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) does not require published material in professional media. 
Compare 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to the outstanding research classification pursuant to 
section 203 (b)( 1 )(B) of the Act. Rather, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5 (h)(3)(iii) requires published 
material in professional or major trade publications or other major media. We find that nationally 
circulated newspapers can constitute major media and, thus, serve to meet this criterion. 
Nevertheless, the materials submitted to meet this criterion are insufficient. As stated above, the only 
published material about the petitioner in Filipino publications predates the filing of the petition by 18 
years. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the niversity materials are nationally 
circulated beyond parents, students and alumni of that university. Similarly, the record contains no 
circulation data for the Utah County Journal or other evidence indicating that the publication is major 
media in the United States. Moreover, even these materials predate the petition by 16 years. The more 
recent materials cannot be reasonably characterized as "about" the petitioner as required under 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not met this criterion with evidence indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Page 8 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
golfer 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 indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a golfer and gained some earlier recognition for his junior achievements, but 
is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his 
field. 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. 9 136 1. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.