dismissed EB-1A Case: Karate

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identifying data deleted to 
 Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
prevefit clezr\y GW asanted 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of personal privacy 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 2 '7 2009 
LIN 07 209 51686 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103,5(a)(l)(i). 
V fihn F. Grissorn 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted 
clear evidence that he would continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3) and that the director erred by concluding that the petitioner was not coming to the United 
States to continue to work in hs area of expertise. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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, 
(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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on June 20, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in karate. Regarding his plans to continue to work in the United States, the petitioner 
submitted a "Personal statement" indicating that he plans to open a karate school and to promote his 
sport as "an athlete, coach and referee." The record includes evidence showing that the petitioner 
has participated in martial arts training, seminars, symposiums, and athletic competitions while in 
the United States. For example, the petitioner submitted an April 7, 2007 letter from the USA 
National Karate-do Federation stating that he competed at "the 2007 USA Open Karate 
Championships." As the petitioner continues to compete in his sport in the United States, we will 
consider his achievements as a karate athlete in addition to his achievements as an instructor, a 
coach, and a referee. The petitioner's continuation of his work in the United States will be further 
addressed below in our discussion of the evidence pertaining to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following athletic awards: 
1. First Place in the Open category at the 1" Indo-Nepal Karate & Kickboxing 
Championship (2006). 
2. First Place in the 75 kilogram category at the 6th National Karate Championship (2006). 
3. First Place in the 60-65 kilogram category at the 8th All Nepal Karate Championship 
(1 995). 
4. First Place in the 60 kilogram category at the 2" National Karate Championships (1994). 
5. First Place in the 55-60 kilogram category at 2nd South Asian Karate Championship 
(1 992). 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
6. Third place in the 55-60 kilogram category at the 7th ~ll Nepal Open Karate Competition 
(1992). 
7. Third Place in the under 60 kilogram category at the 6th Asian SKF's Shikhar Karate 
Championships (1 99 1). 
8. First Place in the 55-60 kilogram category at the 1" National Karate Championships 
(1991). 
The petitioner also submitted two letters dated January 1, 2007 from the presidents of the Nepal 
Karate Federation and the Nepal Shito Ryu Karate Association certifying that the petitioner received 
the preceding awards. 
In addressing the preceding evidence, the director stated that the petitioner's "awards do not 
demonstrate acclaim as a karate competitor as there is no evidence to establish their significance and 
prestige." We concur with the director's observation. The record does not include supporting 
evidence demonstrating the significance and magnitude of the competitive events won by the 
petitioner.2 For example, the record lacks information regarding the number of entrants who 
competed in the petitioner's weight category and their skill level. The plain language of the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be 
nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every 
element of this criterion. In this case, there is no evidence showing that petitioner's awards 
commanded a significant level of recognition beyond the competitive events where they were 
presented. 
Aside from the preceding competitive awards, the petitioner submitted the following honors: 
1. Letter of Honor from the Peace Development Campaign of Nepal commemorating [the 
petitioner's] achievements in the field of Karate in Nepal, and highlighting his 
participation as "a member of the national selection committee for the 8" SAF Game." 
2. Letter of Appreciation from the "National Sports Council Nepal Shito-ryu Karate 
Association" recognizing the petitioner's contribution to "the Ninth SAF Karate Game 
held in Pakistan." 
3. Letter of Appreciation from the "World Karate Confederation [WKC] Nepal Kwanmukan 
Karate Do Association" congratulating the petitioner for receiving his WKC Referee 
License "after having participated and stood excellent in the 1" Open WKC South-East 
Asian & Oceana Championships and Technical Seminar" in March 2003. 
4. Letter of Appreciation fkom the Central Sports Department of the Democratic National 
Youths Association recognizing the petitioner for having "obtained permission to 
perform the role of referee in a world-wide sport of Kata and Kumi of Karate organized 
by the World Karate Confederation." 
2 
National competitions typically issue event programs listing the names of the participating contestants and the order of 
events. At a competition's conclusion, results are usually provided indicating how each participant performed in relation 
to the other competitors. The petitioner, however, has provided no evidence of the official comprehensive results for the 
competitive categories in which he received awards. 
5. Letter of Appreciation from the "United States of America Kwanrnukan" recognizing the 
petitioner for his "dedicated service to World Karate-Do and International Kwanrnukan, 
and for outstanding contribution to the development of Karate Do as a world sport." 
There is no evidence showing that the preceding letters are nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field, rather than simply an acknowledgment of the petitioner's 
participation in sporting events and training seminars. The petitioner has not established that his 
Letter of Honor and Letters of Appreciation had a significant level of recognition beyond the 
presenting organizations. 
Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by karate competitors coached 
primarily by the petitioner can also be considered for this criterion. In this case, there is no evidence 
showing that athletes coached primarily by the petitioner have won nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards in the sport of karate. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel argues that the petitioner's qualifications 
as an "International Referee Instructor" of the Nepal Karate Federation and as an International 
World Karate Confederation Referee meet this criterion. The petitioner's response to the director's 
request for evidence included letters fiom the Acting General Secretary of the Nepal Karate 
Federation and the Founding President of the World Karate Confederation confirming the 
petitioner's international qualifications. Both letters state that the petitioner successfully passed the 
required examination at the 1" South East Asian and Oceania Championships and Technical Referee 
Seminar and received his International World Karate Confederation Referee license. In addressing 
this evidence, the director concluded that the petitioner's refereeing license was "not an actual prize 
or award let alone a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
the field of endeavor. Rather, it appears that the petitioner's license is a professional credential that 
was obtained upon successfully passing an examination." We concur with the director's findings. 
On appeal, counsel states: "[The petitioner] received his WKC referee license at the culmination of 
written and practical examinations. More than sixty referees fiom Nepal competed for this honor 
and [the petitioner] was one of the three chosen from Nepal, receiving the highest score.'' The 
preceding referee license is a career qualification rather than a prize or award. We cannot conclude 
that the petitioner's successful mastery of written and practical examination material is tantamount 
to his receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien'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. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
Page 6 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. Certificate from the World Association of kckboxing Organizations stating that the 
petitioner attained a lSt Degree Blackbelt in "full-light and semi-contact kickboxing" 
(2001). 
2. Referee license for the petitioner from the World Karate Confederation for the styles of 
"Shobu Sanbon" and "Shito Ryu" (2003). 
3. Identification credential from Shorei-kan Europe (1999) showing the petitioner's 
progress toward rank. 
4. Three Examination Sheets from Shorei-Kan International reflecting the petitioner's test 
results (200 1). 
5. His referee identification card from the World Karate Confederation for the World Karate 
Championship. 
6. His competitor identification card for the "2007 USA Open Golden League Junior 
Olympics 35+ Male IntermediateIAdvanced Kumite." 
With regard to item 1, we cannot conclude that meeting the minimum knowledge and skill 
requirements necessary to attain a black belt constitutes outstanding achievements. While the 
petitioner has met the requirements to attain his belt ranking, there is no evidence demonstrating that the 
World Association of Kickboxing Organizations requires a black belt to become a member.3 Nor is 
there evidence identifjmg the specific requirements that must be satisfied to attain a black belt. In 
regard to items 1 through 6, while these documents indicate that the petitioner attained his black belt, 
earned a referee license, trained and tested at a karate club sanctioned by Shorei-kan Europe and 
Shorei-Kan International, and participated in events of the World Karate Confederation and the USA 
National Karate-do Federation, they do not equate to evidence of his "membership" in these 
organizations. Further, there is no evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission 
requirements) showing that the preceding organizations require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the martial arts. 
We cannot ignore that item 6 reflects that the petitioner competed in the 35+ "Golden League" at the 
USA Open Junior Olympics. Such age-restricted competition is not consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that the petitioner "is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). There is no indication that the petitioner faced significant competition from 
throughout his field, rather than limited to individuals within his particular age group. USCIS has 
long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
For example, there is no evidence showing that lower belt rankings are excluded &om membership. 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Cornrnr. 1994); 56 
Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that a martial arts competitor who competes in a 
league restricted to athletes age 35 and over should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability 
employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 
8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that 
have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
The petitioner submitted several training course completion certificates issued to him by the Nepal 
Karate Federation, the USA Karate Federation, the Nepal Shito-Ryu Karate-Do Association, the All 
India Shito-Ryu Karate Association, the Asia Pacific Shito-Ryu Karatedo Federation, the World 
Karate Confederation, and the Nepal Olympic Committee. The petitioner's initial submission also 
included his participation certificates for the World Karate Federation's 1" South East Asian and 
Oceania Championships (2003), the 4th World Karate Confederation Championships (2003), and the 
4th Asian Union of Karate-Do Organization Championship and Congress (1999). The petitioner's 
successful completion of training courses and participation in various competitive events as an 
athlete or referee are not tantamount to evidence of his "membership in associations." Participation 
and course attendance does not equate to membership. Further, there is no evidence showing that the 
preceding organizations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the martial arts. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a March 8, 2008 letter 
from the Acting General Secretary of the Nepal Karate Federation stating that the petitioner was 
appointed as a member of its Technical Committee in 2003. The letter further states: 
All memberships will be granted in accordance with the rules and regulations of Nepal 
Karate Federation. 
Qualifications of the member as follows: 
1. Age must be at least 25 years. 
2. Must be a National Referee license holder, who served at least 10 years to the karate 
field. (For technical memberships) 
4 
 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the defrnition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(hM2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 8 
3. Must be a Nepalese citizen excluding the honorable memberships. 
4. Must obey to the rules and regulations of the federation. 
5. Must have good mental condition. 
6. Must not be convicted. 
The letter also states that a technical member of the Nepal Karate Federation is "the expert of 
technical as well as Referee matters." The Acting General Secretary's letter mentions "the rules and 
regulations of Nepal Karate Federation," but his letter was not accompanied an official copy of 
them. 
The director concluded that the preceding membership qualifications discussed in the Acting 
General Secretary's letter were not tantamount to outstanding achievements. We concur with the 
director's finding. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's membership appointment is based on "his excellence 
as a referee." We cannot conclude, however, that holding a national referee license, serving ten 
years in the karate field, and being an expert in technical and referee matters constitute outstanding 
achievements. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fi-om a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.5 
The petitioner submitted a four-sentence piece entitled "3 Nepalis get Int'l license" in the March 19, 
2003 issue of The Himalayan Times. The author of this brief piece was not identified as required by the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted an incomplete English language translation of an article in the 
October/Novernber 2003 issue of Sadhana entitled "Karate: Sports that enhance Proud of Nepal." 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
5 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
from the foreign language into English. The English language translation accompanying this article 
was not a full translation as required by the regulation. Without a full translation, the petitioner has 
not established that this article is about him. Further, the author of ks article was not identified as 
required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted an incomplete English language translation of an article in the April 10, 1998 
issue of Kantipur entitled "Black Belt Instructor Committee in the Capital." The English language 
translation accompanying this article was not a full translation as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Without a full translation, the petitioner has not established that this article 
is about him. Further, the author of this article was not identified as required by the plain language of 
this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted December 25, 2004 and December 5, 1999 articles in Nepal Samacharpatra 
entitled "Organizing Committee formed under President Rai" and "Nepal didn't take part in the Fourth 
UKO Championship." These articles only mention the petitioner's name in passing. 
 The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion, however, requires that the published material be "about the alien." 
Further, the author of the articles was not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a three-sentence piece entitled "Referees return" in the June 3, 2004 issue of 
The Himalayan Times. The author of this brief piece was not identified as required by the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a four-sentence piece entitled "Kwanmukan karatekas disappoint" in the 
"Newsline" section of an unidentified publication dated June 26,2004. This brief piece only mentions 
the petitioner's name in passing. Further, the author was not identified as required by the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a two-sentence piece entitled "Karate seminar ends" in the March 16, 2004 
issue of The Himalayan Times. The author of this brief piece was not identified as required by the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted an August 5, 2004 article in The Himalayan Times entitled "Int'l karate in 
Jan." This article only mentions the petitioner's name in passing. Further, the author of this article was 
not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a March 30,2003 article in The Himalayan Times entitled "Member secretary 
felicitates international referees." The author of this article was not identified as required by the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a five-sentence piece in the March 30,2003 issue of The Sunday Post entitled 
"WKC gives license to three Nepali officials." This brief piece only mentions the petitioner's name in 
passing. Further, the author was not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. 
Page 10 
The petitioner submitted a six-sentence piece in an undated issue of The Kathmandu Post entitled 
"Karate team left for Italy." This brief piece only mentions the petitioner's name in passing. Further, 
the author was not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a May 17, 2005 article about him in the Annapurna Post, an interview of him 
appearing in the January 12, 2007 issue of Road Map, and an article about him in the February 2004 
issue of Sanchar, but he has not established that these publications qualifL as professional or major 
trade publications or some other form of major media. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of a March 22, 2005 certification from the Press Council 
Nepal identifying Kantipur, Nepal Samacharpatra, The Kathmandu Post, The Himalayan Times, and 
Annapurna Post as "National Daily Newspapers." This document, however, does not specify the 
circulation of these publications. The petitioner also submitted circulation information fi-om the internet 
sites of Kantipur Publications Pvt. Ltd. and The Himalayan Times, but the self-serving nature of their 
website material is not sufficient to demonstrate that their publications qualifL as forms of major media. 
The petitioner's initial submission also included a May 1, 2002 unsigned letter &om the Asia Pacific 
Media Network to counsel's law firm providing "General Information on India & Nepali Publications." 
The letter states: 
First, our university libraries do not have any information on India and Nepal publications, so 
there was no easy way to quickly look up data. Hence our research was confined to the Internet. 
Second, because our research was confined to the Internet, we spent a massive amount of time 
and energy repeatedly looking for publications that in all probability do not exist online. 
However, even with the slightest probability we continued our search for publications but found 
precious little additional information. Third, we repeatedly requested information . . . from the 
parent company of the publication as well as the editors of the publications themselves, but . . . 
we received only one response (fi-om Janadharana Weekly). 
We cannot ignore the Asia Pacific Media Network's comments that its "research was confined to the 
Internet" and yielded "precious little additional information." The outdated and limited internet search 
results compiled by the Asia Pacific Media Network in 2002 are not contemporaneous to the majority 
of the petitioner's articles. Further, with regard to the articles about the petitioner in the Annapuma 
Post, Road Map, and Sanchar, we note that none of these publications were discussed in the Asia 
Pacific Media Network's findings. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits the "Library of Congress Catalogue Record" for The Kathmandu Post. 
However, a publication's availability at the Library of Congress does not establish that the 
publication qualifies as a form of major media. Further, as discussed, the published material in The 
Kathmandu Post only mentioned the petitioner's name in passing and its author was not identified. 
In this case, aside fiom the deficiencies specific to the petitioner's individual articles, the record lacks 
evidence (such as objective circulation information fi-om an independent source) showing the 
distribution of the preceding publications relative to other national media to demonstrate that the 
Page 11 
submitted articles were published in professional or major trade publications or some other form of 
major media. Accordingly, 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 alliedjeld of speciJiation for which classzJcation is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted certificates reflecting his service as an instructor for karate seminars and 
referee courses. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's 
participation . . . as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification." We 
cannot conclude that teaching training courses is tantamount to judging the work of others in the 
field. While an instructor does evaluate the work of his or her pupils, this evaluation is inherent in 
the process of teaching. The petitioner's status an instructor demonstrates his knowledge and 
competency in karate, but he has not established that such a position meets the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion or that it is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of his field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his referee credentials and multiple certificates reflecting his 
participation as a referee or jury member at various karate competitions such as the "Fifth National 
Karate Competition" (2004) and the World Karate Confederation's 4th World Championships 
(2003).~ The petitioner also submitted "Rules of Tournament" from the World Karate Confederation 
reflecting that referees award points in determining the outcome of a match. The record, however, 
does not include evidence showing the names of the athletes evaluated by the petitioner, their level 
of karate expertise, documentation of his assessments, or the level of acclaim associated with the 
competitive events for which the petitioner refereed or juried. Without evidence showing, for 
example, that the petitioner's activities involved judging top competitors in his sport or were 
otherwise consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of his field, 
we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in the3eld. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's work as "an editor, compiler, and author" for the 
National Institute of Sports Karate Course syllabus meets this regulatory criterion. The petitioner 
submits a copv of this svllabus that was co-~rbared bvl 
was the originator of  hi hi to" style karate. 
 Further, we note that the- page numbers 
According to the International Olympic Committee's internet site, the "World Karate Federation" rather than the 
"World Karate Confederation" is the recognized international sports federation for the sport of karate. See "Recognized 
International Sports Federations" at httv:i/uw.olympic.org/uWorganisationl uk.asv?id federation=46, accessed on 
May 18, 2009, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. As there are numerous karate organizations in multiple 
countries, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate the significance of the World Karate Confederation events in which 
he participated. 
Page 12 
throughout this syllabus were handwritten, non-existent, crossed-out, or inconsistent. In addition, 
the typeface throughout the document is not consistent. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain 
or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. at 
591. 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes a March 17, 2008 from -, 
Director, National Institute of Sport, stating: 
One of the most significant contributions to the sport has been the construction of a syllabus 
for the National Sports Council of Nepal, National Institute of Sport, Karate. It was an 
original initiative and a major contribution to the field of Karate by [the petitioner]. 
The syllabus created on 15'~ November 2003 by [the petitioner] was official and approved by 
the National Sports Council of Nepal. There are already 150 new government instructors 
who follow this syllabus, as mandated by the National Institute of Sports. All this was 
possible under the leadership of [the petitioner]. Though certain excerpts fi-om the syllabus 
have been influenced by Dynamic Karate book written by Masatoshi Nakayama, Chief 
instructor Japan Karate Association, most of the work on his own. Such an enthusiastic and 
original contribution is unprecedented in the history of this Council. His work is one of the 
most significant and original contributions in the Karate field . . . . 
While the petitioner and three others contributed to the development of this syllabus, the record lacks 
supporting evidence showing that it is an original contribution of major significance in karate. For 
example, there is no indication that the petitioner's original work was recognized in the same manner 
as the original work of Masatoshi Nakayama or Kenwa Mabuni. According to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major 
significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, 
that it has some meaning. While the petitioner may have edited, compiled, or authored portions of 
the preceding syllabus, there is no evidence showing that his original contributions to th~s document 
were tantamount to contributions of major significance in his field. 
The petitioner submitted letters of recommendation from the Nepal Shito Ryu Karate Association 
and the Nepal Karate Federation. These letters discuss his competitive accomplishments, karate 
expertise, and refereeing credentials. Talent and activity in one's field, however, are not necessarily 
indicative of original athletic contributions of major significance. The record lacks evidence 
showing that the petitioner has made original contributions that have significantly influenced or 
impacted his field. With regard to the petitioner's instructional achievements, there is nothing in the 
recommendation letters to suggest that he has developed original karate techniques, as opposed to 
methodologies passed down from his own tutelage in the sport. Further, even if the techniques 
taught by the petitioner were found to be original, there is nothing to demonstrate that these 
techniques have had major significance in his sport. 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's professional 
contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major 
significance that one would expect of a martial arts athlete or a karate instructor who has sustained 
national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's 
work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his sport, or has otherwise risen to 
the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thejeld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a listing he prepared for the November-December issue of Sport Forum 
entitled "Karate: Practical Rules," but there is no evidence showing that this listing constitutes a 
"scholarly" article in his field. Further, there is no evidence showing that Sport Forum is a professional 
or major trade publication or some other form of major media. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a March 7, 2008 letter fiom 
the president of the Nepal Shito Ryu Karate Association stating: 
[The petitioner] a Member Joint Secretary of the Referee Council of the Shito-Ryo Karate 
Association of Nepal. In a capacity of the Joint Secretary of the Council he is responsible to 
formulate policy, to conduct meeting and to coordinate various functions. Further he has to 
advice and to lead other members of the council in various organizational and technical 
matters. He is elected in the position of the Joint Secretary of the Council amongst the panel 
of judges and referees, based on his contribution to the development of karate sports in Nepal 
as well as considering his achievement and reputation in international arena. As the position 
of the Joint Secretary is different with other positions of the Council and is not considered as 
an employee, he has been serving without any personal benefit. It was his dedication in the 
field of sports and contribution to the country as a whole. 
In addressing the petitioner's evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
First, the record contains no objective documentary evidence which demonstrates the nature 
and standing of the Shito Ryo Karate Association of Nepal. As such, the Service is unable to 
conclude, nor does the record establish, that this organization enjoys a distinguished 
reputation. Second, while the evidence appears to indicate that the petitioner serves as Joint 
Secretary of the Referee Council, the petitioner has not adequately demonstrated his position 
in relation to other officers and key employees in the overall Shito-Ryo Karate Association of 
Nepal. Further, while the petitioner may provide valuable services in his position as Joint 
Secretary, it is quite evident that he does not serve in the top position in the Referee Council 
as he is preceded by the President, Vice President, and Secretary. In essence, the petitioner 
has not established that . . . he was or is responsible for the success and standing of this 
organization to a degree consistent with the meaning of leading or critical. In the context of 
an organization's administrative hierarchy, every position can be considered inherently 
important but not necessarily qualifying in scope or impact to meet this criterion. 
Upon review, we find the director properly considered the evidence submitted, thoroughly addressed 
counsel's arguments and appropriately addressed the evidence and arguments in his decision. On 
appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's analysis. Accordingly, we concur with the 
director's finding that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualie as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Counsel previously argued that the recommendation letters are comparable evidence of the 
petitioner's extraordinary ability pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). The content of the 
recommendation letters has already been addressed under the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$5 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iv), (v), and (viii). Further, there is no evidence showing that the documentation 
the petitioner requests re-evaluation of as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and 
recognition consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Nevertheless, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable 
evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The 
regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no 
indication that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by 
the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3). In fact, counsel has argued that 
the petitioner meets six of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3). Where an alien is simply unable 
to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(4) 
does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
The director also found that the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he would continue to 
work in his area of expertise in the United States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires 
"clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of 
expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of 
prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on 
how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." 
The documentation accompanying the petition included a personal statement indicating that the 
petitioner plans to open a karate school and to promote his sport as an athlete, a coach, and a referee. 
On January 31, 2008 the director requested further evidence demonstrating that the petitioner is 
"coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise." In response, the petitioner 
submitted an updated personal statement dated February 19, 2008, a September 30,2007 letter from the 
Universal Martial Arts Association Hall of Fame in North Carolina stating that the petitioner 
participated in its seminars and karate tournament, a November 20,2007 inviting the petitioner to attend 
the 2008 Kwanarnukan International Master Martial Arts Symposium and his come completion 
certification, and an April 7, 2007 letter from the USA National Karate-do Federation stating that the 
petitioner competed at "the 2007 USA Open Karate Championships." 
The director concluded that the preceding evidence was "insufficient to establish that the petitioner 
is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise." We withdraw the 
director's finding regarding this issue. The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to 
continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 
 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii), and 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(5). We find that the petitioner's statement 
detailing his plans, and the other documentation submitted in support of his statement, are sufficient 
to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Accordingly, the petitioner has overcome the 
stated grounds for denial and established his eligibility pursuant to Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. 
Nevertheless, review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to 
such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to 
be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.