dismissed EB-1A Case: Karate

MATTER OF 1-A-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 8, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an attorney, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a karate coach, 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)(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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
satisfied only one of the evidentiary criteria in the regulations, of which the Beneficiary must meet at 
least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a reference letter and 
maintains that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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, 
Matter of J-A-
(i) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(ii) 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 the 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria. however. does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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); R(jal v. USCIS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011): Mauer q( 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the •'truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality'" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) examines .. each piece of evidence for relevance. probative value, and credibility. both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the tact to be 
proven is probably true''). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner explained that he is an attorney who represents foreign nationals of 
extraordinary ability and that he would assist the Beneficiary. a karate coach. with future 
employment contracts. The Petitioner did not indicate, and the record does not establish. that the 
Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). He must therefore establish eligibility under at least three criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). According to the Petitioner, the Beneficiary meets the criteria relating to 
awards, membership, judging, contributions, and leading or critical role. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),(ii).(iv), (v) and (viii). The Director accepted that the Beneficiary had performed as 
a judge of the work of others under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iv), but found that the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the remaining criteria. For the reasons discussed below. we reach the same conclusion. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-A-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field (~f endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner relies on awards received by members of the team the 
Beneficiary has coached, noting that we have previously accepted team awards as qualifying. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of the Beneficiary's ''receipt " of a 
qualifying award. While we will credit named members of an awarded team with the honor, we will 
not presume a coach to be the recipient of his team's prizes. The record contains a letter from 
General Secretary of the listing the team's awards, and 
photographs of medals and athletes receiving awards. Also, Assistant General 
Secretary, credits the Beneficiary with the team's medals because he has "played an integral part in 
winning each of these medals." 
While affirms the Beneficiary's contribution to the team's victories, he does not 
suggest the Beneficiary is a named recipient of the awards. The record contains no award 
certificates issued to the Beneficiary or media reports listing him as a winner of any competition. 
For this reason, the Petitioner has not satisfied the plain language requirements for this criterion. 
Rather, as the Petitioner notes on appeal, awards received by a coach's athletes are more relevant as 
comparable evidence of the coach's contributions in the field under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v). and 
we will discuss them below under that criterion. 
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). 
Initially, the Petitioner relied on the Beneficiary's role as head coach for the 
and now bases eligibility on that role and membership in the 
affirms that ''the has 
the highest standards in the nation when selecting any of its members, be it the coaches, medical 
staff members or players.'' In response to the Director's request for the constitution or bylaws f()r 
the associations of which the Beneficiary is a member, the Petitioner maintained that as the Head 
Coach of the the Beneficiary is both a member of that team and the 
corroborates this information and explains that the head coach "must not 
only have a strong background competing in the sport, but also have extensive experience as a 
coach.'' The Director focused on the plural language in the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ii) 
and concluded that the record did not show that the requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. 
1 We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence . 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-A-
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that the is a separate membership from the 
and offers a new letter addressing the membership requirements for the 
federation. In his new letter, states that the ·'limits its members to the most 
accomplished and talented karate experts in the country, and consequently. admission criteria are 
very stringent.'' Next, he explains that .. a panel of lifelong karate administrators, former athletes. 
former coaches and championship winners" select coaches for the and members of 
the 
While we do not find the use of the plural in the regulation to be determinative, we agree with the 
Director that the record does not document a qualifying membership. The Beneficiary's role as a 
coach for the is a job position rather than a membership in an association. We will 
consider the nature of his role for that team below under the leading or critical role criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). While characterizes the admission requirements for 
membership in the as "stringent.·· he does not detail those requirements. 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. 111e Attorney General l?lthe 
United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). As the record lacks the constitution or bylaws of 
the federation as requested or other objective documentation regarding membership requirements. 
the Petitioner has not established that it admits members based on outstanding achievements. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence q{the alien's participation. either individually or on a panel . as a judge q(the work l?l 
others in the same or an allied.field of,\pec(ficationfor which class(fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(iv). 
confirms that the Beneficiary '"has served for many years as a on behalf of 
the in its official 
The Director found that, in this role. the Beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others and 
the record supports that conclusion. Based on these duties, the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence l?( the alien 's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_{major sign~ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The achievements of the Beneficiary's athletes are properly considered under this criterion as 
comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4)? Specifically, as the Petitioner notes on appeal. 
the Adjudicator's Field Manual explains that Olympic medals won by a coach's athletes while 
primarily under that coach· s tutelage can serve as comparable evidence under this criterion. See 
USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation qf Evidence Submitted with Certain ~Form 
1-1·10 Petitions: Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) 12 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. lists several awards won by 
athletes on the none of which are Olympic medals. In a personal 
2 This provision allows the submission of comparable evidence where the above standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do 
not readily apply to a beneficiary's occupation . 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-A-
statement dated October 16, 2003, the Beneficiary affirmed that he has served as .. the Head Coach of 
the and offer similar information. The 
record, however, contains a September 23, 2012, article posted on identifying 
as the coach and quoting his reaction to the team's results. The item does not name the 
Beneficiary. The record contains no equivalent material crediting the Beneficiary with the national 
team's successes or letters from athletes confirming that they were primarily under the Beneficiary's 
tutelage when they achieved their victories. Given that the Petitioner has not established the 
Beneficiary 's role for the athletes that won the named awards, he has not shown that the Beneficiary 
meets this criterion through comparable evidence. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1:(ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(viii). 
While we acknowledge the letters describing the Beneficiary's role as Head Coach for the 
the record does not consistently demonstrate that the Beneficiary played a leading or 
critical role for this team or the which administers the team. The letters 
from and both affirm that the Beneficiary is the Head Coach for the 
initially attested broadly to the Beneficiary's contributions to the team and ··crucial 
role" selecting members of the team. characterized the Beneficiary's role as ·'integral'' 
and .. crucial." On appeal, concludes that the Beneficiary holds ''the ultimate leadership 
position on the team." According to the Beneficiary "makes all of the team's tactical 
decisions. has the final say in all the fitness regimens, decides which competitors will partake in each 
match, and oversees the team's training." Yet, has listed his own title as the 
. responsible for the •·training and preparation of athletes for 
domestic and international tournaments." Reporting on the results of the and 
at the in 2012. the article posted on 
peninsulaqatar.com identifies title as ' and quotes his reaction to the 
victories. 
The above information does not show that the Beneficiary fulfills the regulatory 
requirements for 
this criterion. A leading role should be apparent by its position in the organizational hierarchy and 
the role's matching duties. A critical role is evident from its overall impact on the organization or 
establishment. Given all of the information above, it is clear that there are multiple coaches for the 
national team. The Petitioner has not offered a list of all the coaches and explained how they all fit 
in the overall hierarchy of the team and the The record also docs not 
resolve how many individuals served on the jury selecting team members and where the Beneficiary 
fit within that group. None of the references discuss how the Beneficiary's selection as a coach for 
the impacted the results of its members, such as whether they increased their victories 
in international competitions. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of 
demonstrating the Beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion. 
5 
Matter of J-A-
B. Summary 
As explained above, the exhibits the Petitioner provided satisfy only one of the regulatory criteria. 
As a result, 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 listed at 8 C .F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories. the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a .. level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor,'" and (2) that the individual .. has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise.'" 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). (3 ): see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 (discussing a two­
part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria. 
considered in the context of a final merits determination). Although we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
·Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-A-, ID# 17312 (AAO June 8, 2016) 
6