dismissed EB-1A Case: Gymnastics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12844326 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a gymnastics athlete and performer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has a qualifying one-time achievement (a major, 
internationally recognized award), or that he meets at least three of the ten alternate evidentiary criteria 
for this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 a multi-part analysis. First, a pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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). 
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. USCIS, 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 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a gymnastics athlete who competed for~I r---~li=n"--1 __ ~ ____ __,,l competitions 
between 2007 and 2015. Since 2016, he has worked forl I as a tumbling performer in 
itsl I and J I shows. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and therefore 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 determined that the Petitioner satisfied only one of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, relating to high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The Director acknowledged 
the Petitioner's claim that he met the criteria related to lesser internationally recognized awards and 
prizes at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and membership in an association that requires outstanding 
achievements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.4(h)(3)(ii). However, the Director concluded that the evidence did not 
demonstrate that he meets these criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he has received multiple major, internationally recognized 
awards in the sport of gymnastics and can satisfy the initial evidence requirement based on these 
awards alone. The Petitioner farther claims that he meets three of the alternate evidentiary criteria and 
is otherwise qualified for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that 
he received a major, internationally recognized award or that he satisfies the requirements of at least 
three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. One-time Achievement 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has been the recipient of: (1) two gold medals (individual 
and men's team competition) at the 2007 lworld Championship; (2) a gold 
2 
medal (men's team competition) at the 20151 I world Championship s; (3) a 
bronze medal at the 2011 World Championships; ( 4) a gold medal at the 2009 
I !World Games; and (5) multiple gold medals inl __ ----.---------
World Cup events between 2007 and 2009. The Petitioner claims that his gold medals from the World 
Games and World Championships are his "most important accomplishments" and contends that the 
Director erred in failing to recognize any of these awards as major, internationally recognized awards 
consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The evidence establishes that the World Championships and World Games competitions in which the 
Petitioner participated are officially recognized by the international governing body of the sport of 
gymnastics (International Gymnastics Federation or FIG). The evidence also demonstrates that 
I I unlike several other gymnastic disciplines, is not an Olympic sport, and that the World 
Championships and World Games represent the highest level of international competition inl I 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish that his gold medal finishes at these events 
constitute qualifying one-time achievements , the Director emphasized that his achievements "are not 
Olympic awards." 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that sincel I is not an Olympic sport, an Olympic medal 
"is not an applicable example of a major international award in [his] field of expertise." The Petitioner 
argues that, since many athletes are not eligible to compete in the Olympics based on their field, an 
Olympic medal should not be the only example of a qualifying one-time achievement in athletics. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[s]uch evidence shall include evidence of a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major internal[ly] recognized award)." While the regulation does not 
identify any specific qualifying award, the House Report specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an 
example of a one-time achievement. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprin ted in 1990 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. We have consistently recognized other examples of 
a one-time achievement including the Pulitzer Prize, an Academy Award, and an Olympic medal. 
Further, we must look to Congress ' intent that "admission under this category is to be reserved for that 
small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." Id. Thus, 
consistent with legislative history, a one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with 
only a small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. 
We note that the selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress indicated above, is 
reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, reflects 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 global in scope 
and internationally recognized , not just acknowledged within the field as its highest award. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted several major media articles about the World Games 
andl lworld championships , but this evidence does not demonstrate that medals achieved at 
these games are accorded the same recognition associated with a one-time achievement or major, 
internationally recognized award. In fact, some the articles indicate the World Games' lesser 
recognition or standing. For example, an article published by PRI (pri.org) about the 2009 World 
Games refers to the competition as "an obscure sporting event run under the patronage of the Olympic 
3 
Committee but featuring non-Olympic sports" and notes that the World Games' motto "The World is 
Watching," was "clearly an overstatement or wishful thinking - no U.S . broadcaster picked up the 
games." The evidence demonstrates that CNN.com published an article about the opening of the 2009 
World Games, while BBC.col publired a brief preview of the 2019 I I 
World Championships held in However, the submitted media articles do not indicates that 
individual medal winners at these international tumbling events receive broad, significant recognition 
commensurate with that received by winners of Nobel Prizes, Olympic medals, Academy Awards or 
other major internationally recognized awards. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that these 
international events are recognized by the general public at a similar level. 
Therefore, while the Petitioner has won the top award inl lhe did not establish that receipt of 
such an award necessarily qualifies as a one-time achievement, nor can we determine that the top 
award in any field qualifies as a one-time achievement. The fact that a major, internationally 
recognized award, such as an Olympic medal, may not exist in a particular field does not mean that 
we should diminish the impressive nature of the one-time achievement and accept a lesser award. In 
cases where an individual cannot obtain a one-time achievement, including instances where it is not 
available in a field, he or she "can also qualify on the basis of a career of acclaimed work in the field" 
by satisfying three of the ten categories of evidence. See H.R. Rep. at 59 and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Moreover, awards that may be internationally recognized in the field do not necessarily demonstrate 
that they are also major or consistent with one-time achievements . In those instances, the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) allows for an individual to submit lesser internationally recognized awards 
for excellence in the field. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he has received a 
major, internationally recognized award. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he 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). As 
noted, the Petitioner claims that he has submitted evidence to satisfy the criteria related to lesser 
nationally recognized awards, membership in an organization that requires outstanding achievements, 
and high salary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) , (ii) and (ix). 
Documentation of the individual'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). 
As discussed, the record establishes that the Petitioner has received gold medals at the World 
Championships , World Games and World Cup events i~ l and that these events are sanctioned 
by FIG, the international governing body of the sport of gymnastics. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner submitted insufficient evidence of his receipt of these awards and did not demonstrate that 
they are internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field. Further, the Director found that, 
since the Petitioner is currently employed "as a circus performer," his achievements as an athletic 
gymnast "have no probative value for this criterion." 
4 
We conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion and withdraw the Director's determination. 
The Petitioner sufficiently documented his receipt of the above-referenced awards by providing 
official results from these competitions as well as his athlete profile on the FIG website. He also 
provided evidence to establish that the awards are internationally recognized in the sport of 
gymnastics. 
With respect to the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's athletic achievements have "no probative 
value," we note that the Petitioner's role withl lis that of a'.__ _______ _.' A 
letter from! I confirms that this organization recruited him after its talent scouts saw his 
athletic performance at the 20151 lworld Championship. His employer states that it relies on 
his athletic abilities "to execute some of the most complex I I routines" in its 
shows. This evidence demonstrates a clear nexus between the Petitioner's athletic skills as a gymnast 
in thel I and his role as a performer in th~ I and a transitional 
relationship between the two. Accordingly, we disagree with the Director's conclusion that his 
achievements as an athlete have "no probative value" given his current role as al I performer. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion as a former member of the I IN ational 
,__ __ __,I Team. A petitioner's participation as a member of a national team may demonstrate 
eligibility for this criterion, as such teams typically limit their number of members and have a rigorous 
selection process. It is the Petitioner's burden, however, to demonstrate that he meets every element 
of a given criterion. We will not assume that every "national team" is sufficiently exclusive and 
requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their fields or disciplines. 
Here, the Petitioner provided a letter from.__ ________ __.of th Federation of 
I I which he describes as "the national governing body for the disciplines 't'""'---.- __ J 
I t I lconfirms that the Petitioner was a member of the,___~N ational 
I !Team from November 2007 until December 2012 and from January 2015 until December 
2015. With respect to the team membership requirements, he states: 
In order to be including in thel INationall I Team an athlete must, at a 
minimum be a national I champil n in at least one program. In order to maintain his or 
her membership in the National I I Team, an athlete must continue 
placing first at national championships. 
[The Petitioner] received several top place awards atl I Championships 
and Cups and he is a multiple-time national champion and ~old medalist. These awards 
secured his membership in the I I Nationall jTeam. 
,__ ___ ~I also identifies members of the panel of judges at "the I I National .... l ___ __. 
Championship where [ the Petitioner] competed, secured first places and as a result earned membership 
5 
in the I !National I I Team," noting that they are "nationally and internationally 
recognized experts." He suggests that USCIS review their profiles on the federation's website. 
The Petitioner submitted two additional letters from U.S.-based gymnastics coaches not associated 
with thd !Federation ofl 11 I of the World Olympic Gymnastics 
Academy states that the Petitioner "secured his place in the National Team when he n 1 medals 
at national championships and cups" and therefore "selection to the I !National Team 
is a clear indication of having attained 'outstanding achievements' in the field." Similarly, 
I lof the Olympicl !Academy states that the Russian national team "is com~p-r-is-e~d 
of athletes of top achievements, who in order to qualify for national membership, must at the minimum 
be national champions." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly weigh these letters or acknowledge 
that membership on thel I Nationall J Team requires outstanding achievements of its 
members by only accepting national champions in the sport. We note that the Director stated that 
"[r]equirements that only include employment or activity in a given field; minimum education, 
experience or achievement, recommendations by colleagues or current members; or payment of dues 
do not satisfy this criterion." The Petitioner correctly notes that he did not claim or provide evidence 
that his membership on the national team in his sport was based on any of these factors. 
Turning to the submitted evidence, we note that while all three letters referenced above indicate that the 
Petitioner qualified for the I I National I O I Team as a result of winning national 
championships, the record contains no independent evidence of the Petitioner's competition results in any 
I bational championship or any other national event. If he became a member of the national team 
based solely on this achievement, it is reasonable to expect that he provide documentary evidence 
demonstrating that he was in fact the I lnationaII Jchampion in each year he was on the 
team. 
Further, the Petitioner relies solely on the above-referenced letters in support of his claim that 
membership on the team requires an outstanding achievement, i.e., a national championship. Only 
one of the letters is from a person associated with the sport's national federation, and none of them are 
sufficiently specific with respect to the national team membership requirements or selection processes. 
Notably, the record does not contain corroborating ridence, such as a translated copy of the official 
rules or selection procedures from the I Federation ofl I Therefore, based on the 
above, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that his membership on the national 
team satisfies all elements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. For the reasons discussed below, we will 
withdraw that determination. 
The Petitioner provided copies of his pay statements and a copy of his IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax 
Statement, which show that that he earned gross pay of $78,229.43 from I lin 2019. 
The evidence indicated that these gross earnings included "miscellaneous non-taxable compensation" 
6 
of $27,326.71, identified on his pay statements as "Lodging Allow" and "Market All." After 
subtracting these allowances, his wages were $50,901.72. 
The Petitioner's contract of employment withl I for thd I show indicates that he 
was to be paid a weekly salary for rehearsals in early 2019, and $140 per performance of the show 
between April and December 2019. The "show" compensation of $140 is listed on the Petitioner's 
pay statement as an hourly rate and his assertion that his salary is high is based, in part, on a claimed 
hourly wage of $140. However, this rate is inconsistent with the terms of his contract, which lists this 
rate as his "per performance" remuneration. Moreover, we note that the provided employment contract 
indicates that the Petitioner is expected to spend time participating in several activities ancillary to 
performances for which no additional remuneration is provided, such as costume and make up sessions 
and 18 hours of rehearsals per week. Although the Petitioner maintains on appeal that his hourly pay 
is "$190" none of the supporting evidence indicates that he earns this hourly wage. Moreover, based 
on the terms of the Petitioner's contract, the evidence does not establish that his hourly pay is $140. 
The Petitioner provided comparative wage data from several sources in support of his claim that he 
has commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) shows that "Entertainers and Performers, Sports and Related Workers, All Other" 
earn a mean hourly wage of$21.53, with the top ten percent earning at least $42.47 per hour. However, 
for the reasons discussed above, the evidence provided does not clearly identify the Petitioner's hourly 
wage or the number of hours he works per week while on tour withl I 
Information the Petitioner obtained from Payscale indicates that the average circus performer earns 
an annual salary of $39,548, with the top 10% of earners receiving $70,000 or more annually in salary 
and "total pay" as high as $87,000. The Petitioner's 2019 earnings ($50,901 after deducting lodging 
and "market" allowances) is above the average listed here, but well below the highest earners. We 
also note that this data is based on information obtained from only 14 individuals and may not reliably 
represent industry salaries. 
The third and final source the Petitioner provided is an article titled "Becoming a Circus Performer" 
published by the website KidzWorld inl 12017. The article features an interview with a 
I !acrobat and dancer who indicates that she is required to work "a lot oflong hours and 
weekends." The article states that "featured performers like acrobats, contortionists or trapeze artists 
can make between $40,000 and $70,000 a year" along with free room and board while traveling with 
a show but it does not cite a source for these figures. Further, as noted, the Petitioner's salary, after 
deducting the lodging and other allowances that appear to be standard in this field, was $50,901 and 
not on the higher end of the stated wage for a "featured performer." 
For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he meets the high salary 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
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 
7 
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. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8