dismissed EB-1A Case: Jiu-Jitsu

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 5, 2024 In Re: 34250618 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a jiu-jitsu athlete, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability either as the recipient of 
a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, or as someone who initially 
satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [ noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen'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 petitioner can demonstrate recognition 
of their 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 they 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 1 115 (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, a jiu-jitsu athlete, has competed in national and international jiu-jitsu competitions. 
The Director determined 
that the Petitioner is not the recipient of a one-time achievement that is a 
major, internationally recognized award, and the Petitioner does not contest this determination on 
appeal. As such, the issue to be addressed in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that he 
satisfied at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The 
Petitioner claims that he meets the elements of four of these criteria, which are summarized below: 
• (i), Recipient of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the Petitioner; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; and 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance. 
The Director determined, and we agree, that the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence that he was a 
recipient of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award, thereby satisfying the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner satisfied at least two of the 
three remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) - (v). We find that he did not and will address 
two of these criteria in the discussion below. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
First, we will address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) , which requires evidence of published 
material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media. In 
denying the petition, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner 's submission ofpublished articles about 
him in Jits Magazine and gracie.com. However, the Director pointed out that Jits Magazine no longer 
2 
exists after only 25 editions, and further highlighted gracie.com's low ranking and visitation statistics 
as an indication that the website does not fall within the category of major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a letter from _____ who identifies himself as the head 
instructor and owner of lin California and who recognizes Jits Magazine and Gracie 
Magazine for their "significant impact." Although Mr.I I claims that both publications "have 
been instrumental in promoting and advancing the sport of Jiu-Jitsu" and are "highly respected within 
our community," the Petitioner provides no evidence on appeal to address the Director's adverse 
findings, which highlight one publication's demise and the other publication's low ranking and 
visitation statistics. As such, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's adverse determination 
regarding this criterion. 
Next, we will address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which requires evidence that the 
Petitioner made an original contribution of major significance. Although the Director acknowledged 
a recommendation letter that describes the Petitioner's role as creator of a police training program, the 
Director noted that no evidence was submitted to show that the program was taught outside the specific 
business where the Petitioner taught the program or that the program is used by other law enforcement 
centers and that it is considered authoritative within the industry. Ultimately, the Director determined 
that the record lacked evidence showing that the Petitioner's training program is an original 
contribution of major significance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on the letter from Mr. I I who mainly focuses on the 
Petitioner's success in jiu-jitsu competitions and refers to the Petitioner as "an exemplary figure in 
Jiu-Jitsu, whose dedication and expertise have greatly benefited our sport." However, Mr. I I 
does not state how the Petitioner has "greatly benefited" the world of jiu-jitsu, and more importantly, 
he does not identify an original contribution that the Petitioner has made or state how the Petitioner 
has contributed in a way that can be deemed as being of major significance in the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that he has satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
B. Reserved Issues 
As previously noted, the Petitioner also asserts that he meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
which requires evidence that he participated as a judge over the work of others in his field. However, 
because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets three of the four evidentiary criteria claimed 
on appeal, he would not establish that he met three out of ten criteria even if we considered his claims 
regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). As such, we need not determine whether he meets 
the requirements of this criterion, nor do we need to provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we will reserve these issues. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally 
required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that he met either a one-time award, or three of ten initial criteria. The 
Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of 
their respective fields. 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 section 203(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 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. 
4