dismissed EB-1A Case: Karate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23607602 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 13, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an athlete, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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 of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements through evidence of a one-time 
achievement or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate recognition 
of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable material 
if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates he is a competitive athlete in karate and intends to continue his career in the 
United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner satisfied only the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). However, for the reasons 
discussed below, we do not agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the awards criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains eligibility for two additional criteria: published material at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). After reviewing all the 
evidence, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner meets the requirements of at least three criteria.1 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i). 
To fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received prizes or awards, and they are 
nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 The Director 
determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. We disagree and 
withdraw the Director's conclusion on this criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." However, a review of the record 
of proceeding reflects that although the Petitioner documented his receipt of prizes or awards, he did 
1 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 Id. 
2 
not submit sufficient documentary evidence establishing that that they were nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the Turkish Karate Federation listing 
competitions and camps attended by the Petitioner from 2012 to 2022, with the Petitioner's 
placements in each competition. The letter indicates the Petitioner placed in the following 
competitions: 
• fifth place at the Karate Championship in 2019, 
• first place in six Turkish karate cham ionshi s, 
• first place at the _____ Croatia on 2019, 
• first place at the Karate Championship in 2019, 
• second place at the Championship in I I Portugal on 2017, _ 
• second place at Karate Championshi p in 2017, 
• first place at Croatia on 2016, 
• second place at European Championship and _________ 
Portugal on 2014, 
• first place atl lworld Karate Championships in ___ 
Spain on 2013, 
• first place at Championship in Servia on 
2013, 
• first place at ChChampionship in __ Turkey on 
I 12012, 
• second place at Championship inc==JBussia on 2012, and 
• third place atl I Greece on 2012. 
Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence 
in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national 
or international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients, as well as any limitations on competitors.3 
The evidence shows that most of the Petitioner's awards were from age-limited junior competitions 
and university student competitions. Age-limited and university student awards are intended for a 
specific subset of individuals and exclude those already in the field. See Hristov v. Roark, 2011 WL 
4711885 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (upholding AAO finding that an award which was limited to students was 
not granted for excellence in the field of endeavor); see also Strategati, LLC v Sessions, 2019 WL 
2330181 (S.D. CA 2019) (upholding finding that "Woman of the Year" award eliminated men from 
consideration and thus did not "measure the petitioner's standing or selection from the whole field."). 
The Petitioner has not shown that he faced competition throughout the field of karate in these 
competitions, which were restricted by age, student, or non-professional status. Due to these 
3 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 Appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (noting relevant 
considerations in determining if the award or prize meets this criterion, among others, are its national or international 
significance in the field). 
3 
competitions excluding a majority of the field, the Petitioner has not established that these awards are 
for excellence in the field, as required by the regulation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner also submitted letters indicating he placed fifth at the I I Karate 
Championship in I 12019, and first in six Turkish karate championships. The record does not 
sufficiently demonstrate the national or international recognition for excellence in karate for the 
awards. Besides listing the placements, the record does not provide details of the awards. Without 
supporting documentary evidence to provide information regarding the actual competitions 
themselves, such as the sponsoring organizations of the events, the official entry requirements from 
the sponsoring organizations, the level of those who participated, or the degree of attention the events 
attract within the field, we cannot conclude that they are nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for excellence in karate.4 While letters of recommendation from coaches and other athletes in 
his field indicate the Petitioner has extraordinary ability based on these placements, they do not explain 
how these awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and achievement associated 
with the awards. 
With the initial evidence, the Petitioner also submitted documents relating to competItIons he 
participated in after the petition's filing date. The documents may be considered to help establish the 
Petitioner's intention to continue working in the field of karate, however, they may not be considered 
to establish awards received by the Petitioner. The Petitioner must establish eligibility for the criterion 
as of the petition's filing date. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
After considering the record, the Petitioner has not met the plain language requirements of this awards' 
criterion. While the above materials, and the others in the record, confirm the Petitioner's receipt of 
these awards, they do not demonstrate the national or international significance of the awards won, or 
that they are recognized for excellence in the field of karate, as required. The Petitioner has not 
submitted documentation sufficient to establish his eligibility for this criterion. Therefore, we disagree 
with and withdraw the Director's determination of the Petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet 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 classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. We agree 
with the Director's determination. A review of the record does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record includes several articles reporting karate competition results that do not include the title, 
date, or author of the material, thereby not meeting the plain language of the criterion. For instance, 
4 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 Appendix. 
4 
the article published in TRTSPOR entitled, I I dated I 
2014; the article ublished inl I entitled, 
dated 2019; and the article published in Haberler.com entitled, ____ 
___________ dated I 2019, all do not identify an author. Therefore, 
such articles do not meet the plain language of the criterion requiring "the title, date, and author of the 
material". Id. Another article published by the Istanbul Provincial Directorate of Youth and Sports 
does not include any of the title, date, or author, therefore, also not meeting the plain language of the 
criterion. 
To meet this criterion, the evidence must establish that material was published, that it was about the 
Petitioner and his work as a karate athlete, and that the medium in which it was published is a 
professional, major trade or other major medium.5 As noted by the Director, published material "must 
primarily be about the [P]etitioner relating to his work in the field .... " See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 
905 F.Supp.2d 535 (2012) (articles about the Iranian Table Tennis Team which only briefly mentioned 
the person were not about him.); see also Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2008 WL 106997512 (D. Nevada 
2008) (articles focusing on a character played by the person or the show he performed in were not 
about the person). 
Although the Petitioner submitted materials mentioning the Petitioner's name, the materials are 
primarily reporting the results of competitions and briefly mention the Petitioner being part of the male 
kata teams and his teams' lacements at competitions. 6 For instance, the Karate Federation of Turkey 
Official Journal dated 2013, and the article entitled, 
___________ dated I I 2019, each briefly mention the Petitioner, 
within the context of reporting the results of the of the competitions and the Petitioner being part of 
the male kata teams. Although mentioning the Petitioner being part of a team and the team's 
competition results, the material is not about the Petitioner but is instead about the team and the 
competition results. Therefore, the articles do not meet the criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence of published material, including links to website 
articles and quotes from the articles. The Petitioner had an opportunity to provide evidence for this 
criterion in response to the Director's request for evidence. Where a petitioner has been put on notice 
of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the 
AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 l&N 
Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). We will therefore 
not consider this newly submitted evidence in our decision. While, the new evidence is not considered 
on appeal, we note that the links and news' quotes are not sufficient evidence of published material, 
in that the Petitioner did not submit a copy of the full publications with the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
5 See generally 6 USClS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 Appendix. 
6 The Petitioner submitted articles in a foreign language and uncertified English language translations of the articles. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) provides in pertinent part, "Any document containing foreign language submitted to 
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which 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." 
5 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents demonstrating that he meets at least three of the ten criteria. Although the Petitioner claims 
eligibility for an additional criterion on appeal, relating to memberships at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
we need not reach this additional ground. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary 
requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve these issues.7 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the 
aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the 
acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the recognition of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(1)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner has experience as a karate athlete, the record does not contain sufficient 
evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
(declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6