dismissed EB-1A Case: Gymnastics

MATTER OF H-O-H-G- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 15, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECfSION 
PETITION: FORM I-140A, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a gymnastics school, seeks to 'classify the Beneficiary as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) iection 
203(b)(l )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l )(A). This first preference classification .makes immigrant visas 
available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary had satisfied only one of the 
ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the 
ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of . 
extraordinary ability, and 
· (iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. · · 
.
Matter of H-O-H-G- Inc 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does ·not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least thfee of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ ·204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. ·§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final . merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USC/S , 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part r~view- 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 
· Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&NDec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary previously competed as a gymnast until 2015. In 2015, he also served as the 
assistant coach for Since then, he has served as a 
coach for the Petitioner as well as a volunteer coach for the men's 
gymnastics team.2 Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has 
received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition , the Director found that 
the Beneficiary met only one of the initial evidentiary criteria : 
On appeal, the Petitioner mainfains that the Beneficiary satisfies five of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). _ 
\ 
1 The record also refers to this team as the 
2 The record demonstrates that_the Beneficiary was granted 0-1 status and issued a visa in November 2016. 
2 
.
Matter of H-O~H-G-Inc 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien ·s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards.for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director acknowledged the Beneficiary's receipt of multiple awards at gymnastics competitions, 
but found that the record did not demonstrate that the awards are nationally ,or internationally 
recognized. Specifically, he stated that, as these awards were "limited to members of that 
association and participants of that competition ... such evidence has no probative value for meetings 
this criterion." · 
As discussed by the Director, the record contains evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary 
received 1st place as a member of the team representing Japan at the 201.0 , 3rd place all-
around at the in 2012, 2nd place, horizontal bar, at the 2013 
, 3rd place overall at the 2013 and 1st place, 
horizontal · bar, at the 2014 Further, although not mentioned by the 
Director, the record also shows that, among other awards, the Beneficiary was a member of the 
Japanese team receiving 2nd place at the in 2010. We 
find the record sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has won awards that are nationallf or 
internationally recognized for excellence in gymnastics. Accordingly, we disagree with the• 
Director's decision and find that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien ·s membership in associations in the field.for which classffication is 
sought , ·which require outstanding achievements of their members. as judged by recognized 
national 9r international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's membership in an 
association is based on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having 
outstanding achievements in the field for which the classification is sought. 3 The Director stated that 
the Petitioner had provided evidence of the Beneficiary's membership on teams and in the 
However, he found that the record lacked 
evidence establishing that membership in these associations required outstanding achievements of 
their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the. Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's membership on the 
and the meet the regulatory requirement for this criterion. The record indicates that the 
Beneficiary participated in teams representing Japan at various events and it includes a 2012 
certificate from the _____________ recognizing him as a national athlete. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005. l ,' Evalualiun (!/ Evidence S11b111i11ed with Ceriain Form 1-140 
Petilions ; Revisions 10 !he Adjudica/or·s Field Manual (AFM) Chap/ er 22.2, AFM Update ADI /-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www,uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 
.
Matter of H-O-H-G- Inc 
However, the Petitioner has not provided supporting documentation regarding the 
its membership selection process and requirements, or the Beneficiary's membership on this 
team. We noJe, for instance, that the submitted support letters, including letters from the Chairman · 
and the Secretary General of the reference his membership 
on "the Japanese team;' that won second prize in Netherlands in 20 l 0, but they do not 
identify this team or discuss its membership process or requirements. · The Petitioner argues that the 
Director "ignored the selectivity of both the which is limited to the top 16 
gymnasts in Japan, and the which is limited to eleven gymnasts. " (Emphasis in 
original). However , the record lacks corroborative evidence demonstrating these limitations , or 
other materials demonstrating the process by which ~he Beneficiary was selected to be a member of 
these teams. 
In its appeal brief, the Petitioner cites to In re Petitioner [ldent(fj;in g Information Redacted by 
Age ncy}, No . EAC-00-139-52808 , 2003 WL 23194168 (DHS) (AAO Sept. 29, 2003), a non­
precedent Administrative Appeals Office decision finding in which we found that membership on an 
team met the association criterion "because such membership is the result of multi-level 
national competition , supervised by national experts ." The Petitioner has not sufficiently 
documented the membership processes for the Japanese teams on which he competed or the 
to demonstrate their similarity to the team discussed in the cited case. Furthermore , this 
decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future 
adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to 
the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the 
record of proceedings , the issues considered , and applicable law and policy. 
The Petitioner further argues that in another non-precedent decision , Matt er ofC-K- , ID.#1223184 
(AAO Apr. 27, 2018) , we found that "the petitioner's qualification for his c·ountry's national water 
ski team satisfied the criterion for membership. " In that decision , we noted that "the Petitioner · 
provided additional evidence of the requirements to be selected for [his co.untry's] national water ski 
team." We found "[t]he Petitioner [had] submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that [his 
country's] national water ski team requires outstanding achievements by its members as a 
prerequisite for joinin g the team." In the instant case, the Petitioner submit s a certificate , referenced 
above , showing that the Beneficiary was recognized as a riational athlete in 2012, as well as 
certificates from the showing him eligible for training in 2012 
and 2007. However , the Petitioner has not submitted evidence suffi cient to demonstrate the 
requirements for these certifications included outstanding ~chievements, as was done in the 
referenced decision. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Director "inexplicable ignored" Beneficiary's selection 
as a __ by the in 2010. However , the Petitioner does not provide 
supporting evidence demonstrating that outstanding achievements , as judged by recognized national 
or international experts , are required for selection as a . For the reasons 
discussed above , . the · Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiar y meets the regulatory 
requirement for this criterion. 
4 
Matter of H-O-H-G- Inc 
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. 8 C.F.R: 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director previously determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient eviden~e to satisfy this 
criterion. We disagree and withdraw the Director's findings on this criterion. In the appellate brief, 
the Petitjoner lists .14 ·articles which it asserts establish that the Beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. The record, however, does not include sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner provided published material about the Beneficiary in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, which included the title, date, and author. 4 Eight of these 14 
articles are in the Japanese language with uncertified English translations. Any document in a 
foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation.· 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and 
accurate, and that the translator is competent .to translate from the foreign language into English .. Id. 
Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language translation of these 
documents, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus 
supports the Petitioner's claims. In addition, we note that the Petitioner indicates these articles were 
published in Mainichi Shim bun, and Osaka Nichinichi Shim bun, but that the record lacks 
documentation corroborating its assertions that these publications are major media. 
I 
Five of the remaining six English language articles provide coverage of gymnastics competitions 
where the Petitioner is only briefly mentioned or listed as a competitor. Articles that are not about a 
petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See. e.g .. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin. 2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJ at ; 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding· that articles regarding a show are 
not about the actor. The sixth article, published in International Gymnast, is about the Beneficiary 
and discusses an injury he sustained during training, however the record lacks sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate the major status of this publication. In support of its assertion that International 
Gymnast qualifies as major media, the Petitioner quotes the publication's press kit stating that the 
publication "is the most widely read gymnastics magazine ii1 the world and is received in more than 
50 countries." The Petitioner also states that "pass-along readership is estimated 40,000-50,000, 
with digital circulation of 10,000 hits daily." However, USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional 
material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos. No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 
2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine 
as to the magazine's status is not reliable evidence of major media). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not met its burden in demonstrating that the 
Beneficiary meets the requiremen~s of this criterion. We will withdraw the Director's finding on this 
criterion. · 
4 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, an. 
5 I . 
.
Malter of H-O-H-G- Inc 
Evidence · of the alien 's original scientific , scholarly, artistic. athletic_. · or business-relat ed 
co_ntributions of major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner ma'.y show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field , or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiar y' s "unique ability to execute a 
sequence of difficult release moves on the horizontal bar" qualifies him for this criterion. The 
Petitioner notes that the record includes a letter written by an champio1:1, 
stating that the Beneficiary "is the first and only gymnast who 
· on high bar." 5 also notes that the Beneficiary's ability is "truly 
astounding and it is a big feat in men's gymnastics ." Letters from the Chairman and from the 
Secretary General of the respectively , also state that the 
Beneficiary "is the only person in the world who can perform high difficulty combination series .... "6 
These letters do not demonstrate how the Beneficiar y' s performance of this skill has been a 
contribution of major significance to the field. Letters that sp~cifically articulate how the alien ' s 
contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 
Letters that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not 
considered to be probati~e evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 7 
The Petitioner further asserts that the Beneficiary meets this criterion because of his "general 
recognition as a world-renowned gymnast and coach. " The record contains several letters attesting 
to his status in the field. 8 For example , a letter from says, "[The Beneficiar y] was 
regarded as one of the best gymnasts in the world in recent years , competing in numerous 
for However , these letters do not demonstrate how this general 
recognition constitutes a major original ·contribution to the field of gymnastics. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that • the Beneficiary meets the 
requirements for this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1:formed in a l eading or critical role for organizations or 
establishment s that have a distinguished reputation . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) . 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiar y qualifies for this criterion based on his role in leading 
the Japanese teams to second place finishes at the 2012 and the 20 IO 
It fmiher argues that the Beneficiary played "a critical and leading 
5 We note that the Petitioner also provided photographs of the Beneficiary performing this skill. 
6· Elsewhere in the record, writes that he is now "able to perform [the Beneficiary]'s high bar release 
combination skills." 
7 USClS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
8 Although we discuss only one letter, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
.
) 
Matter of H-0-H-G- Inc 
role in the elite and that he "has continued to play a critical and leading role since his 
retireme~t from competition in 2015." As it relates to a leading role, the evidence inust establish that 
a petitioner is or was a. leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a 
role is or was, in fact, leading. 9 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a 
petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 10 
The Petitioner asserts that the' Beneficiary's performance at the 2010 
contributed significantly 10· the Japanese team's silver medal there, noting that he 
"earned the second-highest score for · and the highest of 
any gymnast on any team on the " The record contains evidence corroborating this 
assertion. · This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's athletic performance 
played a critical role in the team's success at ~he 2010 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard -
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g.. Q Data Consulting. Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of.Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); 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). 
Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office ~djudicating the nonimmigrant 
visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and.a district court. Even 
if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are 
rtot bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result , we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination -referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 . Nevertheless , we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support- a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. For 
91d: at 10. 
10 Id. 
7 
Matter of H-O-H-G- Inc I 
. 
the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary qualifies for classification as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-O-H-G- Inc, ID# 2012666 (AAO Feb. 15, 2019) 
8