dismissed EB-1A Case: Judo And Sambo

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8260597 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a judo and sambo athlete and coach , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. § l 153(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 Petitioner did not 
satisfy any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification , of which he must meet at least 
three . The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is coming to the 
United States to continue work in his area of expertise, or that his entry would substantially benefit 
prospectively the United State s. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act ; Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). The Administrative 
Appeal s Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de novo . See Matter of Christo 's Inc. , 26 
l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a sambo and judo athlete and coach and indicates that he intends to work as a judo 
instructor in the United States. The Petitioner claims that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, and, in the alternative, that he has satisfied six of the ten initial regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. One-time Achievement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that a petitioner may submit evidence of a one-time 
achievement that is a~' internationally recognized award. The Petitioner claims that his bronze 
medal awarded at thel__JWorld Sambo Championship is a major, internationally recognized award 
and therefore constitutes a qualifying one-time achievement. 
Given Congress's intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one­
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. Given that the House Report specifically 
cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement, examples of one-time awards which 
enjoy major, international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and (most 
relevant for athletics) an Olympic Medal. 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. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 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 those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award 
must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in 
that field. 
2 
The Petitioner provided evidence of his bronze medal finish in his weight category at the World Sambo 
Championship inc=] including the official results of the competition as posted by the International 
Sambo Federation (FIAS), the international governing body of the sport. 
While the Petitioner's bronze medal is a notable athletic achievement, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) requires the one-time achievement to be "a major, intemational[ly] recognized award." 
The Petitioner did not present evidence, for example, establishing that the competition is widely 
reported by international media, is recognized by the general public, or gamers attention comparable 
to other major, globally recognized awards such as Academy Award winners. He provided evidence 
that his receipt of the award was covered by a sports publication in his native country of Tajikistan, 
but the record does not contain evidence of international coverage of this event. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his receipt of a bronze medal at the c=Jw orld 
Sambo Championships meets the requirements of a one-time achievement. 
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)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner maintains that he has satisfied six of the ten 
criteria, discussed below. 
We have reviewed all the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not show that the Petitioner 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion because the record did not 
establish the prizes and awards, he has received are nationally or internationally recognized. However, 
we find sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner's bronze medal received at the Dw orld 
Sambo Championship meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual'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. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based upon his former membership on the Tajikistan 
National Sambo Team and on the I !Veteran Judo and Sambo Team. 
The president and the secretary general of the Sambo Federation of the Republic of Tajikistan, as well 
as other individuals who claimed to have recommended the Petitioner for membership, submitted 
letters attesting to the Petitioner's membership on Tajikistan's national team from I I 
3 
These letters uniformly state that 'Tajikistan National Sambo Team membership requires outstanding 
achievements in the field of Sambo, as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in 
the field of Sambo." The individuals providing letters did not specify the Petitioner's qualifying 
achievements or identify thl exp
1
rts who judged them. Although the letters indicate that the Petitioner 
was admitted to the team in based on his "outstanding achievements," the record does not identify 
his achievements in the sport of sambo prior to 2003. 
Similarly, a letter from I I head coach of the I I Veteran Judo and Sambo 
Team, states that this team "requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by nationally 
and internationally recognized experts in the fields of judo and sambo." The phrase "outstanding 
achievements ... as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts" appears multiple times 
in each of the letters submitted in support of this criterion, but this repetition of this language does not 
suffice to establish eligibility. Cf Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990) (merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof). In addition, in comparing the letters, they contain large 
portions of identical or virtually identical language consistent with a common source. If testimonial 
material lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the Petitioner to furnish 
corroborative items. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that letters repeating the regulatory 
language are not sufficient and requested the team's or association's constitution or bylaws (to 
establish membership requirements) and evidence that the admitting authorities are recognized 
national or international experts. 
In response, the Petitioner did not submit the requested evidence or ex lain its absence, nor did the 
response address the requirements of membership on the Veteran Judo and Sambo 
Team. The Petitioner submitted a second letter from~------~ ational Sambo Federation 
of Tajikistan, who names some current and former members of the Tajikistan National Sambo Team 
and their achievements. He states that the Petitioner was accepted "at the same level of membership" 
as the listed athletes, and as such, "his acceptance to the team clearly demonstrates membership in the 
team that requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the field of Sambo." He also reiterates that the Petitioner was on the team 
froml I 
In the denial notice, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not submitted objective evidence 
to satisfy this criterion. In particular, the Director noted the absence of documentary evidence to 
establish the requirements for the Petitioner's claimed memberships. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in determining that the referenced teams do 
not require outstanding achievements of their members and by finding that "the Team does not qualify 
as an organization, as INA does not define an organization in this context," although the Director did 
not make such a finding. The Petitioner does not address or rebut the Director's determination that 
the record lacks documentary evidence of the referenced teams' membership requirements. 
The letters provided are not sufficiently specific with respect to the national team membership 
requirements or selection processes and the record does not contain corroborating evidence, such as 
4 
official rules or procedures from the national federation of the sport. The Petitioner must show that he 
meets every element of a given criterion. Based on the above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he 
satisfies this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field.for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director found that the submitted evidence does not satisfy this criterion and we agree with that 
determination. Specifically, the Petitioner did not demonstrate published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, including the author of the material. 1 
The record contains one print article published in the Tajik newspaper Varzish-Sport in~I -----~ 
The article is about the Petitioner and his receipt of the bronze medal at the World Sambo 
Championship held inl I and it includes the title, date and author of the material, along with 
an English translation. 
However, the Petitioner did not provide evidence establishing that Varvish-Sport is a professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 2 The Petitioner submitted a letter from the 
publication's "director" who states that Varvish-Sport, a newspaper focused on sports news, is 
published twice a week. According to the publisher, it is "the largest sports publication in Tajikistan," 
with a total circulation of "more than 7 thousand copies" and a broader reach through its website and 
social media. The self-serving information from the publisher is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
publication qualifies as major media. USCIS need not rely solely on self-serving assertions. 3 The 
Petitioner did not provide evidence showing the distribution of Varzish-Sport relative to other Tajikistani 
media to demonstrate that the submitted article was published in a major medium. Further, the record 
does not contain evidence that the submitted article was posted on the publication's website or include 
circulation figures for the website relative to other online publications. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual'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). 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 7 (Dec. 22. 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. (instructing that evidence of published material in professional or major trade publication or in other major media 
publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and 
show the intended audience of the publication). 
3 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 of S-A-. 22 l&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. 
5 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that, between 2007 and 2009, he served as a judge "at the 
official national judo and sambo championships" where he 'judged the work of other athletes in judo 
and sambo." He submitted a letter from I I of the Sambo Federation of the Republic of 
Tajikistan, who stated that the Petitioner "is the judge of national category of the 1st class wrestling 
sambo.'1 k letter lists 20 events held in Tajikistan between 2006 and 2013 and indicates 
that the Petitioner served at each of these events in one of the following capacities: deputy chief judge, 
chief judge, deputy chief referee, deputy chief secretary, and chief secretary. The listed events 
including city championships, republican championships, and republican tournaments. 
In the RFE, the Director acknowledged I I's letter, but advised the Petitioner that he did 
not provide sufficient details regarding his duties as a judge to demonstrate whether the referee, judge 
and secretary roles listed in that letter involved judging the work or skills of competitors. The Director 
further noted that the record lacked evidence such as official competition rules for the listed 
tournaments to demonstrate that the Petitioner's participation met the requirements of this criterion. 
In response, the Petitioner reiterated that he served as a judge at the official national judo and sambo 
championships in "2007-2009" and 'judged the work of other athletes in judo and sambo." The 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit any additional evidence related to this criterion 
in response to the RFE. However, the record reflects that RFE response included a letter fromD 
.__ _______ ____,of the Tajikistan National Sambo Federation, who confirmed on behalf of the 
federation that "between 2007-2009, [the Petitioner] served as a judge at official national Sambo 
championships, where he judged the performance of other Sambo established athletes." D I I stated that his duties as a judge included: monitoring referees; disqualification of athletes; 
imposing scoring penalties; and adjudicating final results of a competition. 
We find that the two letters from officials of the Tajikistan National Sambo Federation lack 
consistency regarding the Petitioner's service as a judge are therefore insufficient to establish that the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. Although I I provides a list of 20 competitions, and 
identifies the Petitioner's role, and the year and location of each event, his statement that the Petitioner 
served as a judge at events held in Tajikistan between 2006 and 2013 is inconsistent with the 
Petitioner's own claim that he served as a judge only between 2007 and 2009, a claim that is repeated 
b~ I 
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 of S-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). 
Here, the Petitioner relied solely on the aforementioned letters and did not submit corroborating 
evidence, such as his documentation corroborating! l's statement that he held a "l st class 
wrestling sambo" judging credential, his event-specific judging credentials, or official records from 
one or more events in which he claims he served as a judge, to show that he both possesses the 
necessary qualifications as a judge and actually participated as a judge in the claimed national 
6 
championship competitions and other events. Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner did not establish 
that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that he has made original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 4 For example, a petitioner may show that his 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 contends that he meets this 
criterion "by virtue of winning major national and international competitions" and that his 
"accomplishments in his athletic field constitute a contribution of major significance to the sport of 
Sambo." He argues that the Director did not give appropriate weight to the submitted expert 
testimonials. 
In addition to the letters already discussed, the Petitioner provided letters from fellow sambo athletes 
I 11 I, I l and I I in support of this criterion. The 
letters are all similar in content and note the Petitioner's membership on the Tajikistan national team 
(as both an athlete and assistant head coach), indicate that he served as a judge from 2007 to 2009, 
describe him as "one of the few who has developed his own unique style in judo and sambo, which 
allows him to excel in a variety of judo and sambo forms at the level that is truly superb," and 
summarize his results in "major national and international" sambo and judo competitions. These 
letters also state that "[the Petitioner's] accomplishments in the field of sambo earned him the 
distinguished title of Master of Sport, International Class" in sambo, which is "granted only to those 
outstanding athletes who have achieved success in major international tournaments .... " 
The Petitioner's achievements in sambo and judo competitions and tournaments are more relevant to 
the awards category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), a separate and distinct criterion that he 
has already satisfied. Consistent with the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three 
separate criteria, we will generally not consider here evidence relating to the awards criterion. 
Regardless, the Petitioner did not establish that his competitive athletic results were indicative of 
original athletic contributions of major significance in the overall field. 5 Likewise, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate how his "Master of Sport, International Class, in Sambo" qualifies as an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. He did not show, for example, that the title was awarded 
to him because he had made an original contribution that significantly impacted the sport or explain 
how it is otherwise majorly significant in the sport. 
Although the authors summarized the Petitioner's career and highlighted his achievements, they did 
not establish how they reflect original contributions of major significance in the field. In addition, 
having a diverse or unique skill set is not a contribution of major significance in-and-of-itself Rather, 
the record must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has already used those skills and abilities 
to impact the field at a significant level. In the case here, the Petitioner did not establish how his 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8 (finding that although work may be "original." this fact 
alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
5 Id. at 8-9; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom 
dancer had not met this criterion because she did not conoborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
7 
physical abilities and "unique style" are viewed as an original contribution, as well as how they have 
significantly influenced the field. 
The letters submitted primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in his sport without 
providing specific examples of original contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 6 Letters that lack specifics and 
use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may 
form the basis for meeting this criterion. 7 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
While the Petitioner has competed in competitions and tournaments at the national and international 
level and also in related activities such as coaching, he has not shown how these activities equate to 
"original" athletic contributions of major significance in the field. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issues 
As explained above, we find that although the Petitioner satisfies the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), he does not meet any additional criteria on appeal relating to membership in 
associations, published materials, judging, and original contributions. Although he argues and submits 
evidence for one additional criterion on appeal, relating to leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), we need not reach this additional ground. As the 
Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 8 Similarly, since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of 
the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Director's separate determinations that the 
Petitioner did not establish that he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" 
and that his entry would "substantially benefit prospectively the United States" under section 
203(b)(l)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. 
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. Accordingly, 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 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 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id. at 9. 
8 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.) 
8 
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. 
9