dismissed EB-1A Case: Hockey

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 30, 2024 In Re: 30354710 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a hockey referee, seeks classification as an alien 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for this classification through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) or meeting at least 
three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner (or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they: 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and that 
• Their entry into the United States will prospectively substantially benefit the United States. 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as extensive documentation that their achievements have been recognized in the field. Section 
203(b)(l) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that 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." It also 
sets forth a multi-part analysis. A petitioner can demonstrate international recognition of their 
achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If such evidence is unavailable, then they must alternatively provide evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten listed criteria, which call for evidence about other awards they may have received, 
published material about them in qualifying media, and their authorship of scholarly articles, among 
other types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2),(3). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows that the 
individual possesses the acclaim and recognition required for this highly exclusive immigrant visa 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 l0) ( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a hockey referee who has officiated games at the national and international levels. 
He states that he intends to continue working as a hockey referee in the United States, and to establish 
a hockey school for children. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that they received a major, internationally 
recognized award, they must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), relating to his leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
with a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets five additional 
evidentiary criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude the he has not 
established that he meets the initial evidence requirements for the requested classification. 
Documentation of the alien'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) 
In order to meet this criterion, an individual must establish that they are a member of associations in 
their field of claimed extraordinary ability. In addition, they must show that these associations require 
that their members have outstanding achievements, and that those achievements were judged to be 
outstanding by recognized national and international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The Director concluded in her decision that while the Petitioner established his membership in the Ice 
Hockey Federation of the Republic of Belarus (IHFRB), he did not show that this association requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that he is a member of 
2 
IHFRB as well as "a member of Belarus national ice hockey team ofjudges and referees." In support 
of the second of these claims, he refers to one of several letters in the record from V-R-, an official 
with the IHFRB, which goes through the steps to becoming an internationally-licensed hockey referee. 
Although V-R- states in this letter that the progression to this level requires "endorsement of the 
national federation," there is no indication that an internationally-licensed referee is part of a national 
team of referees as the Petitioner asserts. Rather, the letter focuses on the path an individual must take 
to achieve this level in their career. 
In addition, an article from the website www.belarushockey.com names several referees from Belarus, 
including the Petitioner, who were selected to work at youth world championship tournaments, but 
does not state that they will work together as part of a team of referees from Belarus, unlike hockey 
athletes who are selected for national teams. While athletes (and potentially coaches) who are 
members of national teams for the purposes of international competition may meet the requirements 
of this criterion, provided that the teams require outstanding achievements of their members, the 
Petitioner has not shown that he is a member of a national team. 
Regarding the Petitioner's claim to this criterion based upon his membership in the IHFRB, we note 
that he did not respond to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) with additional evidence about 
that association's membership requirements. He renews this claim in his appeal, but the Petitioner 
does not explain his disagreement with the Director's decision on this point or refer to specific 
evidence supporting his claim. We therefore agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner 
has not shown that his membership in the IHFRB required outstanding achievements. 
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
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 allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
This criterion requires that an individual have served as a judge of the work of others, either in their 
field of expertise or in an allied field of specialization. Here, the record includes ample evidence that 
the Petitioner has officiated several hockey games as either a linesman or head referee. However, the 
Director noted that the evidence did not show that the Petitioner judged the work of others in his field 
in this role, but instead enforced the rules of the game and ensured sportsmanlike competition. 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner refers to two letters from V-R- which describe the duties of a hockey 
referee, as well as the IHFRB 's official rule book and sections from the Belorussian statute regarding 
sports. The first letter dated July 31, 2023 states that referees are responsible for rule enforcement, 
game management, and penalty assessment among other duties, and is generally consistent with the 
rule book and statute concerning the duties of referees. However, none of these duties involve an 
evaluation of the skill or athleticism or other aspects of the work of the hockey players, who could be 
considered to be engaged in an allied field of specialization. And while the letter indicates that referees 
submit post-game reports which document incidents, penalties, and player ejections, it does not state 
that these reports include any evaluation of the work of the referees. 
3 
A second letter from V-R- with the same date reiterates many of the same points as the first discussed 
above regarding the duties of a hockey referee, but adds that the Petitioner served as an "inspector 
(supervisor) ofjudges on ice" during the 2020/2021 and 2021 /2022 seasons. The letter provides details 
about the Petitioner's duties in this role, including observing referees, evaluating their ice skating 
skills, physical fitness, and knowledge and application of hockey rules, and providing feedback to the 
referees during the game. However, the letter does not provide details about the events at which the 
Petitioner performed these duties, such as in which league or age group the games were, the level of 
the referees being judged, the number of games at which the Petitioner performed these duties, or 
specific dates of those games. Further, we note that none of the other materials submitted, including 
the sections of the IHFRB rule book, the Belarus statute regarding sports, and individual game reports 
noting the names and positions of the officiating crews, mention the position of inspector or supervisor. 
Also, none ofV-R-'s other letters, or those written by several other of the Petitioner's colleagues and 
acquaintances, mention his work in this capacity. 
Depending on the specificity, detail, and credibility of a letter, USCIS may give the document more 
or less persuasive weight in a proceeding. The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held 
that testimony should not be disregarded simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter ofS-A-, 
22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only 
encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where 
available." Id. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need 
for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Given the lack of detail in V-R-'s letter about when, where, and who the Petitioner judged, and the 
lack of documentary evidence to support the statements made in the letter, the record does not 
sufficiently establish that he participated as a judge of the work of others in his field. He has therefore 
not shown that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, an individual must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but that the contributions have been of major significance in the field. For example, an 
individual may 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. 
See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. 
The Petitioner on appeal refers to several of our previous decisions for the proposition that reference 
letters are among the types of evidence that may support a conclusion that an individual meets this 
criterion. But these decisions were not published as precedents and therefore do not bind USCIS 
officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Unpublished agency decisions and advisory 
legal opinions, such as the Lawrence Weinig letter to which the Petitioner also refers, are not binding, 
even when they are published in private publications or widely circulated. R.L. Inv. Ltd Partners v. 
INS, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1022 (D. Haw. 2000), aff'd, 273 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001). As the Petitioner 
notes, however, we will consider detailed reference letters which are specific in identifying any 
contributions made by an individual and provide examples of how those contributions were of 
significance to the individual's field. 
4 
Here, the Petitioner lists the reference letters submitted by his colleagues, acquaintances, and 
employers, but does not identify an original contribution he has made to the field of hockey officiating 
that has been of major significance. Likewise, the authors of the letters mainly describe his duties as 
a referee or his performance in this role without specifying any impact or influence this work has had 
on the broader field. For example, U-R-, a fellow referee, praises the Petitioner's work as a referee in 
a single game in an Olympic qualifying tournament, but does not suggest that his actions in this game 
had any influence beyond the game. Another fellow referee, M-S-, describes the Petitioner's career 
as a referee, beginning with officiating children's hockey, and then states that his "exceptional 
achievements and original contributions have made him a true leader and innovator in his field." But 
M-S- does not identify any of these original contributions, or explain why he considers the Petitioner 
to be an innovator. In addition, 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), ajj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990. This is also seen in the letter from V-K-, who uses the word 
"contribution" on three occasions in his letter without providing any detail about any contributions or 
their impact on the field of hockey officiating. 
Several of the reference letters mention that the Petitioner has trained and mentored new referees, but 
only the previously mentioned letter from V-R- goes into any detail on this potential contribution. As 
we stated above, the letter is short on details regarding the timing, frequency, and level of these 
training/mentoring activities. It also includes statements regarding the impact of these activities, such 
as that the Petitioner's post-game reports "contributed to the broader development and enhancement 
of officiating standards within the league," and that they "became vital documents in shaping the future 
of officiating in the league." But the letter does not identify specific officiating standards or rules 
which were introduced or improved directly due to the Petitioner's work, or otherwise demonstrate 
that this work remarkably impacted or influenced the field. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that because hockey is a popular sport in his home country and 
he holds an international referee license, his "contributions as a judge and referee are of major 
significance in Belarus." But the Petitioner misinterprets the requirements of this criterion in making 
this assertion, as the focus is on original contributions that are of major significance to his field of 
endeavor, not to the general population of his native country. Further, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that performing his duties as a hockey referee has contributed to the field of hockey, 
whether in Belarus or at the international level. 
Finally, the Petitioner points out that he received a "Letter of Gratitude" from thel I 
for his work in its 2014/2015 Championship Season. But this is a form letter sent 
to many individuals, as can be seen in its expression of thanks for work "no matter at which category 
or level." The letter is solely meant to congratulate the group of hockey officials who served during 
this period on their work, and makes no mention of any individual contribution by the Petitioner. 
Per the above discussion, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has made contributions of 
major significance to his field, and thus he does not meet this criterion. 
5 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
To meet this criterion, an individual must submit evidence that their work was on display at an 
exhibition or showcase, and that the nature of that exhibition or showcase was artistic. The Director 
determined in her decision that the Petitioner's work as a referee in hockey games did not constitute a 
display of his work at an artistic exhibition or showcase, as the nature of the games was competitive. 
She also concluded that the Petitioner had not shown, per the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
regarding comparable evidence, that this criterion does not readily apply to his occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to two of our previous decisions concerning comparable evidence, one 
in which we determined that performing artists could qualify under this criterion through comparable 
evidence, and another concerning whether the comparable evidence provision could be applied to a 
single criteria. As we noted above, non-precedent decisions are not binding in future adjudications. 
In addition, the Petitioner is not a performing artist, and the Director did not decline to consider the 
Petitioner's assertion about comparable evidence based on its application to a single evidentiary 
criterion. 
For comparable evidence to be considered, a petitioner must first show that a criterion does not readily 
apply to their occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The Petitioner asserts that the Director did not 
consider his statement that this criterion does not apply to his occupation because he is not an artist. 
But an unsupported assertion is not sufficient to demonstrate that an evidentiary criterion does not 
apply to a particular occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), 
www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Also, even if we were to conclude that this criterion does not readily 
apply to the Petitioner's occupation, he has not demonstrated that the evidence of his work as a hockey 
referee is comparable to an artistic exhibition or showcase. While the definition of an exhibition 
includes a public display of athletic skill, it is the skill of the athletes, not the rule-enforcing skill of 
the officiating crew, that is on display in a hockey game. Id. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
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. Although he claims that he is eligible under an 
additional criteria on appeal, relating to published material about him and his work at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(3)(3)(iii), we need not reach this additional ground because the Petitioner is unable to meet the 
minimum of three evidentiary criteria. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve his appellate arguments regarding this 
additional criterion. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not 
required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6 
As the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidence requirements of the requested classification, 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. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for those 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 ofPrice, 20 T&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. l 0 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )( I )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7