dismissed EB-1A Case: Judo

MATTER OF M-N-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 24.2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a judo wrestler. seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l )(A). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(I )(A). This tirst 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 Form I-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary met any of the ten initial 
evidentiary criteria. of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she meets three criteria. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(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 111 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 ofthe 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 
.
Matter of M-N-
requirements. First. a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major. 
internationally recogni zed award). Alternatively, he or she must provide document ation that meets 
at least three of the ten categorie s of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, member ships , and published material in certain med ia). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements , we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merit s 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 endea vor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 1 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then . if fulfi lling 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. 20 13); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantit y of evidence alone but by its quality ," as well as the principle that we 
examine ''each piece of evidence for relevance. probati ve value. and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determ ine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." MatterofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369,37 6 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner initially indicat ed that she is a free style judo, sambo, and jiu-jitsu wrestler and coach. 
In respo nse to the Director 's request for evidence , the Petiti oner stated that she '"applied as a 'j udo 
wrestler,' NOT as a wrestling coach. " In the appeal br ief~ the Petitioner contends that the Director' s 
decision primarily focused on her position as a coach, and she requests that we consid er 
her area of 
expertise as a judo wrestler. Accordingly, our decision will evaluate the Petitioner's expertise as a 
judo wrestler. As the Petition er has not established that she has received a major. intern ationally 
recog nized award, she must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). 
The Director held that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of these criteria. On appeal , the Petition er 
asserts that she meets the following criteria: awards at 8 C.f.R . § 204.5(h)(3 )(i), member ship at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), and published material at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
1 
For the reasons 
discussed b elow, the reco rd does not support a findin g that the Petition er satisfies at least three 
criteria. 
Documentation (~f the alien's receipt olfesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or au:ardsfor excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(3)( i). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence indicating that she won a gold. silver. and bronze medal at the 
a gold medal at the 
and a gold and bronze medal in 
1 
While the Petitioner prev iously c laimed eligibilit y for the judg ing criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)( iv) and t he 
leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), she does not continue to do so on appea l. nor doe s the 
record support a findin g that she meets them. Accordingl y, we will not furt her address these criteria in our decision. 
2 
.
Matter of M-N-
among numerous other awards in judo. sambo, and jiu-jitsu competitions. She 
also provided media coverage of the competitions indicating that the awards are nationally 
recognized in her sport. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation ofthe alien's membership in associations in thefieldfhr which classification 
is sought. which requir e outstanding achievements <?/'their members. asjudRed h_v recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfieldr;. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion due to her membership in the women's 
judo team, the women's jiu-jitsu team. and her role as an assistant 
coach of the sport club . The record does not support a finding that these organizations 
require outstanding achievements of their members. The evidence includes two letters from 
the head coach of the women's judo team . who indicates 
that she selected the Petitioner for the " because of the outstanding achievements she 
reached" and that she believed the Petitioner "would contribute to the Judo Team:· 
further contends that she only selects candidates who have produced '·major national and 
international victories," but she does not otTer specific examples. The Petitioner also submits a letter 
from her jiu-jitsu coach. who indicate s that the Petitioner represented 
in the in 2011, 2013 , and 2014, but does not detail the 
criteria for her selection . As the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence of the selection 
process for the women's judo and jiu-jitsu teams , she has not demonstrat ed that 
they require outstanding achievements of their members. 
The Petitioner states that she is relying on Matter ofK-S- Y- (AAO , March 9, 20 16), which she refer s 
to as a precedent decision. First, this decision was not published as a precedent and therefor e doe s 
not bind U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 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. Second, the cited matter is distinguishable from 
the facts here. In the cited matter, the record demonstrated that the petitioner competed in selection 
matches to determine who would be on the national team. Additionally. the evidence indicat ed that 
"only those with the highest leve l of performance" made the which had the third 
highest number of medals in judo of any other country. Here, the evidence doe s not show 
the judo or jiu-jitsu teams ' ranking compared to other countries or the specific 
level of achievement required tor becoming a member of these national teams. Therefore, the record 
docs not sufficiently establish that the judo and jiu-jit su teams require 
outstanding achievements of its members as a prerequisite tor joining the teams. 
also claims that the Petitioner meets this criterion through having been an assistant 
coach and referee for the renowned judo club The Petitioner submitted a lette r from the 
sen ior coach of the who indicates that the Petitioner was employed as a wrestler at 
from 2003 to 2013 and as an assistant coach from 2007 to 2013. The record. howe ver. 
doe s not demonstrate that the requires outstanding achievement of its members. as 
.
.A·fatter o_f/'.4-N-
judged by recognized national or international experts. The Petitioner has not established therefore 
that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publica/ions or other 1najor 
media. relating to the alien's work in lhejieldfor which classificalion is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author o(fhe material. and any necessar_v translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence tram four publications, the book 
and the newspaper of Kazakhstan. She asserts 
that this is evidence of published material about her in professional or other major trade publications. 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion requires "published material about the alien." Articles 
that are not about the Petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. S'ee. e.g. Negro-Piumpe v. 
Okin 2:07-CV-00820 at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show 
are not about the actor). Here, the record does indicate that these publications constitute major media. 
However, we find that the published material report on particular competitions and reference the 
Petitioner briefly and tangentially as having won a medal or competed in the event. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not met the plain language of this criterion. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus. we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian. 596 F.3d at 119-20? Nevertheless, \o\'e advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate. concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Beneficiary has the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as kfaller of'li . .f-J\1-. ID# 785070 (AAO Jan. 24, 20 18) 
2 In addition, as the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary' s extraordin ary ability under section 203(b )(I )(A)( i) of 
the Act, we need not determine whether she is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability'' under 
section 203(b)(I)(A)(ii). 
4