dismissed EB-1A Case: Karate

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 08 187 52130 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. !j 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
/C(nNflL 
f -'Perry Rhew 
t Chief, Administrative Appeals Ofice 
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) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in business andlor athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established the beneficiary's requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the beneficiary demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive 
documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) 
states that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one- 
time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, 
the regulation outlines ten criteria that call for the submission of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
$9 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). Through the submission of required initial evidence, at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria must be satisfied for an alien to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets the one-time achievement, or in the alternative, at least 
three ofthe regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) ofthe 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 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, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines the following 
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. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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 classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) 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 allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 201 0, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 7253 17 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). 
Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
procedure for evaluating evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those 
concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's approach rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satis@ the 
regulatory requirement ofthree types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying 
under three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service 
Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Dor v. INS, 891 
F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
' Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
This petition, filed on June 16, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a karate professional. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).* 
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, international 
recognized award). 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that he has satisfied this criterion by winning a world karate title in 
1993. The petitioner provided a certificate indicating that he won the Wado International World 
Championship in Athens in 1993. In addition, the petitioner submitted reference letters, a 
photograph of the medal and newspaper articles, which all confm his claim to such title. 
The director's decision did not address whether the petitioner had received a one-time achievement 
award because the petitioner did not allege that he satisfied this criterion until after he appealed the 
decision. 
Given Congress' 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 handhl of awards qualifLing 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 1 01 -723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. Congress' example of a one-time 
achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101 -723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 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. 5 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser internationally 
recognized award could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien must 
meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 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 of those elements, it is clear fi-om 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. 
In this instance, the petitioner has failed to establish that the Wado International World 
Championship can be considered a major, internationally recognized award, at the level of other 
such awards like the Nobel Prize. This award, however, will be hrther addressed as a lesser award 
under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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 meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
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 evidence: 
the petitioner's placements in various competitions, without a certified translation; (On 
appeal, his letter was in English and signed by him) 
2. A certificate that indicated the petitioner was "World Champion" at the Wado International 
World Championship in Athens in 1993; 
4. A picture of a medal with an Italian caption that the petitioner claims is a 1" Place Award at 
an Italian tournament in Rome in 1988, without a translation; 
5. A picture of a medal that the petitioner claims is a 1" Place Award at the Italian Cup in 1988, 
without a translation for the inscription; 
6. A picture of a medal indicating in hand writing that it is for the International 1" Place Team 
Award at the European Cup in 1990, without a translation of the inscription; 
7. A picture of a medal with an Italian inscription, which the petitioner indicates is for a lst 
Place Award at an Italian Championship in 1991, without a translation; 
8. A picture of a medal, which the petitioner claims is for a 1" Place Award at Rinascita 
Tournament in 1991, without a translation; 
9. A picture of a medal with no inscriptions and no explanation (handwriting appears to be cut 
off at the bottom of the page), which may be for a 1" Place Medal Award at the World 
Championship in Athens in 1993, as per the petitioner's briec 
10. A picture of a trophy and a plaque with no explanation; 
1 1. A picture of a medal for the 1" Place Team Award at an Italian tournament in 1993, without 
a translation; 
12. A picture of a trophy for an International 1" Place Award at the European Cup in 1994, 
without a translation for the inscription; 
13. A picture of a medal for an International 1" Place Individual Award at the Karete-Cip in 
1994, without a translation; 
14. A picture of a medal for 1" Place Award at the "1 00 years of Sport" Tournament in 1995, 
without a translation; 
15. A picture of a medal for the 1" Place Individual Award at the Italian Championship in 1995, 
without a translation; 
16. A picture of a medal for the 1" Place Team Award at an Italian Championship in 1995, 
without a translation for the inscription; 
17. A picture of a medal for a 1" Place Team Award at an Italian Championship in 1995, without 
a translation for the inscription: 
18. A picture of a medal for an International 1 Place Team Award in Sardinla in 1995, without a 
translation for the inscription; 
19. A picture of a medal for an International I St Place Team Award in Torino in 1995, without a 
translation for the inscription; 
Page 7 
20. A picture of a trophy for a 1" Place Award at the International Award at the International 
Costa Paradiso Cup in 1995, without a translation; 
21. A photograph of a medal for 1" Place Award at the International Malatesti Cup in Pistola in 
1996, without a translation; 
22. A trophy for lSt Place Award at the International Open in Milan in 1996, without a 
translation; 
23. A photograph of a medal for Most Accomplished Athlete from the A. S. Federation, without a 
translation; 
24. A photograph of a medal for 1" Place Award at the Armed Forces Tournament in 1997, 
without a translation; 
25. A photo of a medal for 1" Place Award at Karate Day in 2000 (no translation needed but 
medal does not indicate first place); 
26. A 1" Place Award at the International Tournament in 2000, without a translation; 
27. A 1" Place Award at an Italian Tournament in Florence in 2002, without a translation; 
28. A photograph of a plaque for 1" Place Award at the Italian Team Competition in 2004, 
without a translation; 
29. A photograph of a plaque of an Honors Award fiom the New Karate Club, without a 
translation; 
30. A photograph of a plaque for 2nd Place Award at "Gran Gala" National Armed Forces 
Competition in 2005, without a translation, and a picture of the petitioner near a big trophy 
without an explanation; 
3 1. A picture of a medal for "Best Athlete" National Achievement Honors Award issued by the 
City of Rome to the petitioner in 2006, without a translation; 
32. A picture of a trophy for an Acknowledgement of the petitioner's karate career, without a 
translation; and 
33. A picture of a coin for "Most Accomplished Athlete" Award issued by the "Fiamme Oro" at 
the 5oth Anniversary of the Club in 2006, without a translation. 
In response to the director's Request For Evidence (RFE), dated March 23, 2009, the petitioner 
provided a letter kom 
His letter confirmed that the petitioner won first place at the 1993 Wado World 
Championship and that he won first place at the 1994 European Championships in his 80+ kilogram 
category, and that there were over 1000 participants at each of these competitions. In addition, 
confirmed that these placements signified that the petitioner was internationally considered 
the top 80+ kilogram Wado expert in the world in 1993 and in Europe in 1994. No new evidence was 
provided on appeal. 
In his July 7, 2009 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. While we 
concur with this determination, we note that the evidence provided by the petitioner for this criterion 
was often times problematic. Many of the photographs the petitioner submitted were blurry and 
difficult to read. In addition, the appropriate translations for all of his medals and trophies, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), were not provided. 
Nonetheless, we find that the petitioner has 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 orinternational experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted a reference letter from fi and 
, confirming that the petitioner has been a member of the sports 
group since 1989 as both an lso mentioned that 
the petitioner was captain of 02. His letter also 
confirmed the petitioner's participation and placements in various karate competitions. A 
declaration from the Italian government, confirming that the petitioner was an Assistant Chief State 
Police and was in the police force from 1989 through 2008, was submitted. The petitioner also 
provided pictures of himself standing in front of the flag and logo. Lastly, photographs of the 
medals that were presented to the petitioner by the National Police Athletes Association were also 
submitted. However, they were not translated as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided another letter from Mr. 
explained that thousands of people apply to be part of Fiamme Oro, and that only a 
"select few" become members. His letter further informs that "an applicant must be nationally 
acclaimed for their expertise in Karate," and that this "acclaim can be in the form of top placement at 
national and international Karate competitions." On appeal, no new evidence was provided. 
However, the petitioner claimed that, in addition to being a member om he was also a 
member of The Japan Karate-Do Organization, and a member of a "major Italian Association the 
Karate Pera." The petitioner had previously submitted two reference letters fro- 
of Japan Karate-Do Organization and one from of the 
Karate-Cup International Competition, for other criterion. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criteria, the 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 
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 submits that he was a member and captain for The record does not 
include evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that the 
recedin organization requires outstanding achievements of its members. Although 
stated that "an applicant must be nationally acclaimed for their expertise in Karate" and 
that this "acclaim can be in the form of top placement at national and international Karate 
competitions," it is unclear whether other lesser qualifications could also be sufficient to become a 
member of With regard to the petitioner's membership in The Japan Karate-Do 
Organization and Karate Pera, none of the evidence provided confirmed his membership in these 
organizations. In addition, the reference letters fi-om members of these groups do not provide any 
details regarding membership, including official membership requirements. Moreover, the petitioner 
failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that membership in any of these organizations is 
judged by recognized national or international experts of karate. 
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 classi~cation 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 qualifL 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.3 
The petitioner provided the following evidence: 
1. An article fi-om the Speciale Karate, dated October 5, 1993, with an uncertified translation; 
2. An article in I1 Messaggero, dated October 10, 1993, with an uncertified translation; 
3. An article in Metropolit, dated October 19, 1993 (according to the petitioner, as the date not 
indicated in translation or article), with an uncertified translation; and 
4. An article in I1 Messaggero, dated September 29, 1993, with an uncertified translation. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a printout fi-om Wikipedia regarding I1 Messaggero. 
No evidence was provided on appeal. 
In his decision, the Director found that the petitioner failed to meet this criterion. We concur with 
this decision. The record contains no reliable evidence to demonstrate that any of the publications 
can be considered professional or major trade publications or other major media. Although the 
petitioner provided a printout fi-om Wikipedia in an attempt to demonstrate that I1 Messaggero is a 
major publication, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content fi-om this open, user- 
edited internet site. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). As 
such, we will not give significant weight to claims for which Wikipedia is the only cited source. 
Moreover, none of the articles provided were accompanied by the appropriate translation as required by 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). This regulation requires that any document containing foreign language 
3 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. 
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 from the foreign language into English. The petitioner instead provided 
uncertified translations for all the articles without the requisite certifications. This is insufficient to 
meet the requirements of the regulations. As such, this information cannot be given any weight. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following letters in support of this criterion: 
who stated that he is a Potential em~lover for the petitioner: 
2. A reference letter fi-oi of lapan ~arate-DO Organization; 
- 
3. A reference letter fi-om 
 written in Italian and with an uncertified 
translation; 
4. A reference letter &om 1 Training Institute; 
5. A reference letter fi-o , who interviewed the petitioner 
and who stated that he mav em~lov him as a trainer for an actress in his film: 
, 1, 
6. A reference letter fi-om who has agreed to 
endorse the petitioner in his competitions in the United States; 
7. A reference letter fiom accompanied by a 
flyer for Extreme Boot Camp; and 
8.  list of athletes in 
 and their placements, that the petitioner claimed to have 
trained. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided an additional reference letter from- 
On appeal, an additional list of athletes' titles, that the petitioner claims to have trained, was 
provided. 
In his first letter (item 2), 
 of the Japan Karate-Do Organization confms 
various competitions in which the petitioner placed. In addition,tated: 
Since 2002 [has] been dedicated to his career in the State Police and has served as a 
coach and team trainer, a osition that has enabled him to inspire many younger athletes. I 
have come to know dh as an individual of fine character with a strong work ethic, 
persistence, and integrity. I recommend with great confidence. I believe that 
he would make a worthwhile contribution to our society. 
In second letter, he finther explains that: 
It is well established that the United States has one of the weaker Karate teams in international 
competition. Our organization seeks to change that fact. We believe that will be 
instrumental in achieving that goal. Our intention is to feature both as a competitor 
and as the representative face for our organization. world renowned abilities will 
international competition. 
H 
serve to anchor our U.S. Karate team and to provide us with the expertise necessary to prevail in 
has displayed a high degree of integrity, responsibility, and ambition. He is - - 
definitely a leader rather fhan a follower. In addition to his excellent scholastic 
accomplishments, he has proven his leadership ability by organizing an effective eight week 
program design project for a client in the class. What this has proven is his ability to be an 
outstanding asset as a fitness instructor in this country. 
Similarly, states the petitioner: 
Is very uniquely qualified and there is no one in Los Angeles with [his] particular abilities. 
With his athletic expertise and knowledge,= would help us to establish a stronger 
presence in the karate arena, and to mher karate education within the community. 
From what I know of he could be a very valuable asset for my business and I 
would highly consider hiring him should he be granted the opportunity to reside and work in 
the United States. 
An alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. 
In this case, the petitioner failed to submit preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance. While the letters highly praise the petitioner and his talents, 
they fail to establish that he has made contributions of major significance in his field. In evaluating 
the reference letters, they do not specif cally identify how his contributions have influenced the field; 
rather, the letters discuss the possible implications that his work may lead to in the future. We will 
not consider evidence reflecting claims of future speculation. Eligibility must be established at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b:)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. 
Comrnr. 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision 
further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider 
facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
In this case, the recommendation letters are not sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. The 
opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. The statutory requirement that an alien 
have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the 
alien's immediate acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
6 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Cornrnr. 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 fiom the petitioner's personal 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 any immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence or original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an individual who 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
In addition, with regard to the list of athletes that the petitioner claims to have trained, he failed to 
provide any documentary evidence which demonstrates that he trained these individuals. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffi, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
As such, the petitioner has failed to establish that he has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the .field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner initially submitted various photographs of himself during and afier competitions, as 
well as of his Italian State Police Force Karate team. No new evidence was submitted in response to 
the RFE or on appeal. 
The plain language of this criterion indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors 
and painters) rather than for than for an athlete such as the petitioner. It is inherent for an athlete to 
compete. Therefore, not every competition is a showcase or exhibition of the work of every athlete. 
Without evidence that the petitioner's performances were comparable to the exclusive artistic 
showcases that might serve to meet this criterion for a visual artist, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner did not claim this criteria initially or response to the RFE. However, on appeal, the 
petitioner argued that he played a leading role in the Italian Police Force as a trainer and mentor. The 
petitioner states in his appeal brief that the "transition ffom being an athlete to a trainer and mentor of 
other athletes signifies the epitome of leadership for the organization and the apex of achievement in the 
field of Karate." 
In order to establish that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, he must establish the nature of his role within the 
organization or establishment and its reputation. The petitioner failed to provide any evidence to 
support that his position in the Italian Police Force was commensurate with a leading or critical role. 
For example, the petitioner has not submitted an organizational chart or other similar evidence showing 
where the petitioner's position fell within the hierarchy of the organization. Similarly, there was no 
evidence provided that discussed the petitioner's actual responsibilities as a trainer or mentor. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence 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[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at "3. 
In this case, the specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already 
been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). The 
petitioner, who last entered the U.S. as an F-1 nonirnrnigrant student to attend a language training 
school, submitted documentation relating to his achievements as a coach and karate professional. The 
submitted evidence, however, is not indicative of the petitioner's sustained national or international 
acclaim and there is no indication that his individual achievements have been recognized in the field. 
With regard to the evidence submitted for the prizes and awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
the director concluded that the petitioner met the plain language of this criterion and we concurred. 
However, we note that the awards were received by the petitioner in 1993 and 1994 respectively. 
The plain language of statute and of the controlling regulation requires the petitioner to demonstrate 
that his national or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The submitted evidence is not consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim in karate as of the date of filing of this petition. 
Similarly, regarding the evidence submitted for the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
Ej 204.5(h)(3)(iii), we cannot ignore that all the articles that were provided regarding the petitioner were 
ffom 1993. As previously noted, the statute and regulations require the petitioner to demonstrate that 
his national or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim as of the date of 
filing this petition and there is no fbrther qualifying evidence under this criterion or the other criteria 
documenting the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim in karate in the years 
immediately preceding the filing date. 
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. $ 204.5(h)(2). 
111. Conclusion 
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 the his eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 8 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US, Dept. of Tramp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.