dismissed EB-1A Case: Karate

PUBLICCOP\ 
DATE: APR 2 3 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Ci tizenshi p 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF -REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
-v!J:- 25/"'"-~~ ~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition on August 18, 2010. The self-represented petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, 
appealed the decision with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on September 17, 2010.1 The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, specifically, in 
the field of karate, as both a practitioner and coach, pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A). The director determined that 
the petitioner has not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See Section § 203(b )(I)(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and (1) an October 14, 2010 U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) online printout showing his case status, (2) copies of medals with 
handwritten notations, (3) a November 5, 2009 letter from ••••• 
"an Italian State Police team, (4) a list of 2002 to 2007 competition results of athletes the 
petitioner had trained, (5) three news articles and their English translations, and (6) a number of 
online printouts about karate and its practitioners and organizations, none of which reference the 
petitioner specifically. The petitioner has previously filed most of these documents. 
In his brief filed in support of the instant appeal, the petitioner asserts that his first place finish in his 
weight division at the 1993 1st Competition constitutes 
"evidence of a one-time achievement a major, recognized award)," as required 
under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). He also asserts that the director erred in finding that 
he has not established the sustained national or international acclaim as a karate practitioner or as a 
karate coach, necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Specifically, 
1 Although the petitioner's brief filed in support of the instant appeal contains the letterhead an 
attorney located in Los Angeles, California, the brief states that "This appeal is written by [the petitioner] and just put 
some labeling by the attorney listed above. This is his own writing and his request was to submit it with his own words. 
So below is his Appeal." The AAO notes that although filed a Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney 
or Accredited Representative, Form G-28, when the petitioner initially filed the visa petition, she did not file a Form G-
28 when the instant appeal was filed. Moreover, it was the petitioner who signed the Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form 
I-290B, not_ or another attorney. Accordingly, the AAO deems that the petitioner is self-represented. 
Page 3 
he asserts that he meets the lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership in associations criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material about the alien criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
the performance of a leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). For the 
reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the 
exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the AAO finds that the petitioner meets none of the ten 
regulatory criteria under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). As such, the AAO finds that the 
petitioner, whose most significant accomplishments predate the filing of the petition by 15 or more 
years, has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field 
and he has not sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
Accordingly, the AAO must dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
1. LAW 
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. 
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 H.R. 723 WIst Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 
(Nov. 29, 1991). 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or his achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Page 4 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 P.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld 
the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion? With respect to the criteria at 8 c.P.R. 
§ 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." Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation 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 satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 
596 P.3d at 1122 (citing to 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language of the regulatory requirements. As the petitioner did not submit 
qualifying evidence showing a one-time achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award, or evidence under any of the ten regulatory criteria, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirements. Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 1122. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Under the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the sport of karate by 
presenting evidence of a one-time achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award. 
On appeal, the petitioner contends that he meets this evidentiary requirement because he had won a 
world championship in his weight division, 80+ kilograms, at a 1993 international competition held 
in Athens, Greece. He presents a number of documents to corroborate his claim of a first place 
finish in the competition, inclu . orld Championship certificate, (2) 
photographs of the "1st 21, 
2009 letter from 
2 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. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
:1 The petitioner does not claim that the petitioner meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
-Page 5 
(WIKF), (4) a number of letters from 
newspaper articles. 
and (5) a number of 
Based on all the evidence in the record, however, the AAO finds that petitioner has not shown that 
his first place finish, in his weight division, in the 1993 international competition constitutes a major, 
internationally recognized award under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). First, the AAO 
notes that the name of the 1993 competition has been inconsistently in the ·tioner's 
evidence. The competition certificate indicates that . 
Championship," but the shows that it is the "1st 
Competition." provided another name for the competl : '_ 
World Championships." The October 10, 1993 article, entitled "Martial Arts: Karate - an Athlete 
from World Champion," published by states that the petitioner won 
, held in Athens, Greece. The September 29, 1993 article, entitled 
also published by states that the competition is called the 
. ." The October 5, 1993 article, entitled ' •••••• 
published by calls the competition: ,_ 
I-nu,u .. ",u· "In his April 12, 20 1 a response to for Evidence, p~ 
that in 1993, the petitioner won the a name for the 
competition that is not used in any of the abovementioned documentary evidence. The petitioner has 
provided inconsistent documents and "it is incumbent upon [him] to resolve the inconsistencies by 
independent objective evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile the conflicting accounts [or 
evidence], absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not 
suffice." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner has provided no such 
evidence to explain or reconcile the inconsistent evidence. 
Second, the AAO does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the 1993 international 
competition constitutes a major, internationally recognized award. In her March 3, 2010 Request for 
Evidence, the director requested the petitioner to "submit documentary evidence to establish the 
criteria for winning the award or prize, including evidence regarding who is eligible to compete for 
the award or prize." The director also requested the petitioner to submit "documentary evidence to 
establish the reputation of the organization granting the award and any other documentary evidence 
establishing the significance of the award or prize." In response, the petitioner's prior counsel 
referenced a letter from which states that the 1993 competition 
"featured the top level of world-wide professional Wado participants," there were "over 1000 
participants," and the petitioner's first place finish means that he "was internationally considered as 
the top 80+ kilogram _expert in the world in 1993." An October 5, 1993 article, entitled 
••••••• published by states that more than 
21 teams representing nations from all over the world participated in the 1993 competition. It also 
states that "the traditionally strong nations in terms of karate teams - Spain, Japan and Great Britain 
- had sent their best athletes." 
None of the two documents or any other documents in the record, however, fully address the 
director's Request for Evidence. Specifically, the petitioner has not presented any evidence on the 
Page 6 
number of divisions in the 1993 competition, the number of participants in the petitioner's division, 
the qualification for participation in the practitioner's division, the criteria for wining first place in 
the petitioner's division or the number of first place finishes awarded in the 1993 competition. 
Moreover, although letter states that the competition organizer, 
_"was founded in 1991," it is "established in 51 countries," and it is "the largest of the three 
main organization[s]," this evidence, which relates to the size of the competition organizer, 
does not establish reputation or prestige in the sport of karate in 1993, at the time it awarded 
the petitioner a first place finish in the competition. Furthermore, the evidence submitted to show 
the recognition of the petitioner's award is from the entity that issued the award. Such self­
promotional evidence has minimal evidentiary value. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO 
(C.D.C.A. July 6, 2007), alf'd, 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not 
have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as 
major media). The petitioner has not supported the self-promotional evidence with more 
independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent journalistic coverage of the 1993 
competition in nationally circulated publications. 
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 handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 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. Id. 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. 
§ 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 from 
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 case, the petitioner has not shown through his evidence that his first place finish in his weight 
division in the 1993 international competition constitutes a major, internationally recognized award, 
at the level similarly to that of the Nobel Prize. The award, however, will be further addressed as a 
lesser award under the criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Barring the petitioner's receipt of such a major, internationally recognized award, the regulation 
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to meet the basic eligibility 
requirements. 
Page 7 
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). 
When prior counsel initially filed the visa petition on December 28, 2009, she asserted that the 
petitioner meets the prizes or awards for excellence criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), because of the petitioner's first place finishes in competitions from 1988 to 2000. 
In her March 3, 2010 Request for Evidence, the director requested the petitioner to submit evidence 
to establish the criteria for winning each award or prize, including evidence regarding who is eligible 
to compete, the reputation of the competition organizers and any other evidence showing the 
significance of each award. In response, prior counsel listed the petitioner's additional competition 
results from 2002 to 2007, and asserted that "[t]hese awards constitute national acclaim, as they are 
from Italian competitions, and sustained success, as they range from the year 2002 through 2007." 
Prior counsel also provided evidence that the petitioner has received a number of awards for being a 
coach at The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted qualifying 
evidence under this criterion. 
The AAO acknowledges that previously, the petItlOner had filed another employment-based 
immigrant visa petition on June 16, 2008 and provided much of the same evidence he has provided 
along with the instant employment-based immigrant visa petition, filed on December 28, 2009. 
With respect to the June 16, 2008 petition, the director, without including any analysis, found that 
the petitioner met the lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. On April 29, 
2010, the AAO did not explicitly withdraw the director's finding, but noted: 
... [T]he 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. § 103.2(b )(3), were not provided. 
While the AAO in its April 29, 2010 decision did not withdraw the director's finding that the 
petitioner met this criterion, the prior AAO decision does not preclude the AAO from now finding 
that, based on all the evidence currently in the record, the petitioner has not met the criterion. Even 
prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying extensions based on a reassessment of a 
petitioner's qualifications. See Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, No. 03-10832, 99 F. App'x 556, 
2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. Jun.2, 2004). In short, the AAO is not required to approve applications 
or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may 
have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 
1988). It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as 
binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. 
denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). In this matter, there has not even been a prior approval, the AAO 
merely failed to withdraw a favorable finding in a director's decision that ultimately denied a prior 
petition. 
Page 8 
In this case, based on the evidence currently before the AAO, the AAO finds that the petitioner has 
not met the prizes or awards for excellence criterion. Although the AAO finds that the petitioner's 
first place finish in the 1993 ," which predates the filing of the instant 
visa petition by more than 15 years, constitutes a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award for excellence, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not shown he has received a 
second lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the sport of 
karate, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of qualifying prizes or awards in the plural, 
consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. Section 203(b )(I)(A)(i) of 
the Act. While the petitioner's first place finish in the 1993 international competition constitutes a 
single example of such prize or award, it is insufficient evidence to show prizes or awards for 
excellence in the plural. 
In her brief filed in support of the initial visa counsel contended that the petitioner's 
first place finish at the "1994 
and his placements in a number of competitions held in and out of Italy constitute lesser nationally 
or internationally reco· . es or awards. To this assertion, prior counsel filed an April 
21, 2009 letter from stating that the petitioner had finished in "1 st 
place in the 80+ kilogram category at Championships in Paris." The letter also 
states that the 1994 competition "featured the top level of European _ participants," had "over 
1000 participants," and the petitioner's placement "signifies that [he] was Europe's best 80+ 
kilogram ~arate expert." 
In his undated letter, 
Karate competition several times," stated that 
the petitioner finished "1 st qualified" in "male team in the 
International" in January 1994 and finished "1st qualified" in "Individual 80 Kilos+" and in "Male 
teams in the in January 1996. The letter further states 
that there were 399 athletes from 6 countries who participated in the January 1994 competition and 
324 athletes from 6 countries who participated in the January 1996 competition. 
In her January 8, 2008 letter, listed the petitioner's first place 
finish in the •••••••• ' in Paris, France, as part of his ·ve history 
from 1991 to 2000. Also, a December 31, 1994 article, entitled 
states that the petitioner had won in December 1994 
- Ryu in Paris, France." 
Although the petitioner's evidence shows his partIcIpation and high finishes in a number of 
international competitions, his evidence does not show that these finishes constitute nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the sport of karate. First, the petitioner 
submitted photocopies of a number of medals and trophies. Some of the photocopies, however, are 
blurry and hard to read. Also, some of the medals and trophies contain foreign languages, and have 
not been properly translated as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Second, 
Page 9 
'tioner has submitted a number of reference letters, including those from_ 
state that some of 
the competitions in which the petitioner was awarded a high placement, had hundreds of 
participating athletes from a number of different countries, the AAO does not have information on 
the number of divisions in each competition, the number of participants in the petitioner's division in 
each competition, the qualification for participation in the practitioner's division in each 
competition, the criteria for determining a participant's placement in the petitioner's division in each 
competition or the number of each placement, i.e., first place, second place and third place, awarded 
in each competition. 
Moreover, the AAO found that the petitioner has not shown that the competition organizers have 
such a reputation such that the petitioner's placements in the competitions constitute nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the sport of karate. Specifically, 
although the petitioner has a letter from ( 
of the "1994 and (2) 
number of international competitions, AAO finds that such evidence, submitted to show the 
recognition of the petitioner's awards, is from the organizers that issued the awards. Such self­
promotional evidence has minimal evidentiary value. See Braga, 2009 WL 604888. The petitioner 
has not supported the self-promotional evidence with more independent evidence, such as, but not 
limited to, independent journalistic coverage of the competitions in nationally circulated 
publications. 
Finally, the petitioner has submitted photocopies of awards that he received as a coach and 
photographs of awards or trophies that the teams or athletes he trained had received. The awards 
include: a 2002 award "to the coach of the 
first classified team" to pet! of 
200S." The petitioner, however, has not provided the AAO with evidence of the number of people 
who were eligible to receive any of the coaching awards, the nomination and selection process for 
each award, or the number of people who received a similar award in the same year. In short, the 
AAO has insufficient evidence to conclude that any of the awards that the petitioner received in his 
role as a coach or the awards of the teams and athletes the petitioner coached constitutes a lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the sport of karate. 
Accordingly, based on all the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
submitted documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of karate. See 8 c.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i). 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii). 
When prior counsel initially filed the visa petition, she claimed that the petitioner meets the 
membership in associations criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii), because he 
Page 10 
was a member in and The 
director, however, found in her August 18, 2010 decision, that the ner not shown he is 
a member of any association that requires outstanding achievements of its members. The AAO 
agrees. 
The petitioner asserts in his brief in support of the instant appeal that "as a world champion, [he is] 
exempted from having to meet any membership requirement." He further asserts that "[his] world 
champion title [is] the membership requirement." As previously discussed, although the petitioner 
calls himself a world champion, the AAO finds that he has not provided sufficient evidence showing 
that this title constitutes a one-time achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award. 
Also, the petitioner has provided no evidence to support his assertion that his "world champion title" 
is a membership requirement for any of the organizations to which he is a member. The AAO has 
consistently found that unsubstantiated assertions are not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of TreaSllre Craft of California , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Although the petitioner has submitted a number of documents relating to this criterion, none of them, 
however, support his assertion that the organizations to which he is a member require outstanding 
achievements of their members. For example, the petitioner filed a March 30, 2010 online printout 
from the Italian State Police, stating that to join the its sport team, applicants must be 
"recognized athletes in the national interest by the I Committee or the National Sports 
Federations." Neither the printout nor any other evidence in the record explains the meaning of 
"recognized athletes in the national interest" or whether it means that members must have 
outstanding achievements. 
Moreover, although the petitioner has submitted a number of letters from 
none of the letters the petitioner'S assertion that he meets this criterion. In her 
March 13, 2009 letter, stated that the petitioner was a member 
Karate division, from 1989 to 2007. She further stated that "[o]ne must have extraordinary ability in 
Karate to be a member of this organization." She explained, in a general manner, without giving any 
specific numbers, that "[0 Jut of the thousands of people who apply to become a part of this team, 
only a select few can become members. Each individual applicant is evaluated for their 
qualifications." In her October 2009 letter, stated that the petitioner was a 
"mentor and trainer for the karate team from 2002 to 2007." A 
position with an association is not a membership in an association. The regulations contain a 
separate criterion for leading or critical roles for organizations or establishments with a distinguished 
reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Moreover, she did not provide any details as to the 
qualifications one must have to become a member or a coach for _ or information on 
whether membership is dependent on an applicant's outstanding achievements as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the sport of karate. 
The petitioner has also failed to show that _requires outstanding achievements from its members. 
Specifically, although the petitioner has provided a September 21, 2010 _ online printout that 
Page 11 
states that it, founded in 1972, "is the premier karate organization in the world," he has failed to 
provide the membership selection criteria or details on how one becomes and remains a _ 
member. As such, the AAO is without sufficient evidence to conclude that the "requires of its 
members outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
sport of karate. 
The petitioner also asserts that he is a member of_ and files an April 16, 2009 letter on 
_ letterhead that verifies his membership from 1997 to 2007. The letter indicates that the 
petitioner became a technical karate instructor first in the trainer category in 1996, and then in the 
instructor category in 2004. Initially, the AAO notes that the petitioner has not provided a full 
English ~anslation of the Italian document. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Second, the 
undated_ online printout does not establish that the organization requires outstanding 
achievement of its member. 
Accordingly, based on all the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
submitted documentation of his 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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). 
When prior counsel initially filed the visa petltIon, she claimed that the petItIOner meets the 
published material about the alien criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In her 
response to the director's Request for Evidence, prior counsel continued to assert that the petitioner 
meets this criterion. The petitioner has submitted a number of articles, including (1) a September 29, 
1993 article, entitled "Karate Championship," published in Il Messaggero, (2) an October 10, 1993 
article, entitled "Martial Arts: Karate - an Athlete from Ostia becomes World Champion," published 
in Il Messaggero, (3) an October 5, 1993 article, entitled "Scotto Enters the Olympus," published in 
If Giornale di Ostia: Sport Litorale, (4) a December 31, 1994 article, entitled "A Policeman in 
Kimono," published in Metropolit, and (5) a January 22, 1996 article, entitled "Karate - Fiamme 
Oro," published in La Gazzetta dello Sport. Prior counsel also filed two Wikipedia articles about the 
publisher If Messaggero and La Gazzetta dello Sport, but no information about Metropolit. In her 
August 18, 2010 decision, the director found that none of the articles that the petitioner has filed 
constitute published material about him in a professional or major publication or other major media, 
relating to his work in the sport of karate. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he meets this 
criterion. The AAO disagrees. 
First, the AAO finds that the article published in La Gazzetta Delio Sport is not about the petitioner's 
work in the sport of karate. The article consists of one sentence, in which the petitioner's name is 
not mentioned, and a list of competition winners, in which the petitioner's last name, not his full 
name, was noted two times. The petitioner has provided no legal basis upon which the AAO can 
conclude that this published material can be considered published material about the petitioner's 
work in the sport of karate. Moreover, although the petitioner has filed a Wikipedia article that 
indicates La Gazzetta della Sport is an Italian newspaper dedicated to the coverage of various sports 
and it "sells over 400,000 copies daily" in Italy, the AAO finds that the Wikipedia article is 
insufficient to demonstrate that La Gazzetta della Sport constitutes either a professional or a major 
trade publication or other major media. As there are no assurances about the reliability of the 
content from Wikipedia, an open, user-edited internet site, the AAO will not assign weight to 
information from it.4 See Laamilem Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Finally, the 
article does not specify its author, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Second, although the petitioner has filed a number of articles published in Il Messaggero, the only 
evidence he has filed about Il M essaggero is a Wikipedia article and a printout indicating that the 
newspaper sold 304,709 copies on March 22, 2010. As previously noted, due to its lack of 
assurances of content reliability, the AAO will not assign weight to information from a Wikipedia 
article. See Laamilem Badasa, 540 F.3d at 909. The AAO also will not assign weight to the 
printout, because it is mostly in Italian, with only one sentence translated into English, and because 
its source is unspecified. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3) ("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."). Moreover, other than the article entitled 
"Martial Arts: Karate - an Athlete from Ostia becomes World Champion," none of the other articles 
specify the author, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Finally, although the petitioner has filed a number of online printouts from the Italian State Police 
website, the petitioner has not shown that any of the online material constitutes an article that is 
published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. The AAO also notes 
that none of the online material specify the author, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
4 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative 
encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource 
of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. 
Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required 
to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . .. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of 
the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or 
altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, accessed on April 12, 2012, a copy of which IS 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
-Page 13 
Accordingly, based on all the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence of published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, relating to his work in the sport of karate for which classification 
is sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
When prior counsel initially filed the visa petition, she contended that the petitioner meets the 
participation as a judge criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) because the 
'tioner was invited "to be on the jury panel as [a] judge of the 2010 37th Annual •••••• 
Championships .... " To corroborate this assertion, the petitioner filed a 
November 11, 2009 letter from inviting the petitioner to be a judge 
for the 37th Annual_Championships scheduled for January 17, 2010. In her response to the 
director's Request for Evidence, however, prior counsel did not specifically contend that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. In her August 18, 2010 decision, the director found that the petitioner 
has not met this criterion because the 37th Annual_Championships were held on January 17, 
2010, after the petitioner filed the instant visa petition on December 28, 2009. The petitioner must 
show his eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12) (the 
petitioner must establish that he is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit 
request and must continue to be eligible through adjudication); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). On appeal, the petitioner has not challenged the director's decision as 
relating to this criterion. Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this 
issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 
1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiff's claims to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
When prior counsel initially filed the visa petition, she asserted that the petitioner meets the display 
at artistic exhibitions or showcases criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), 
because he participated in karate competitions, he coached karate teams and athletes, and he was 
mentioned in the advertising flyer for the 36th Annual 
Championships. Prior counsel, however, did not continue to contend that the petitioner meets this 
criterion in her response to the director's Request of Evidence. In her August 18, 2010 decision, the 
director concluded that the petitioner has not met this criterion because "[ n]o documentary evidence 
has been submitted to establish that any demonstration given by the petitioner was artistic in nature 
or that they were otherwise viewed as significant to the field in a manner indicative of extraordinary 
ability." On appeal, the petitioner has not challenged the director's decision as relating to this 
Page 14 
criterion. Accordingly, the AAO concludes that he has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely 
raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
When the petitioner's prior counsel initially filed the visa petition, she asserted that the petitioner 
meets the leading or critical role criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 
because (1)" "is interested in having [the petitioner] be the representative imagine of their [sic] 
organization and to play the lead position in training future athletes as well as competing on behalf 
of the organization; and (2) the petitioner "was selected as [a] trainer and mentor for the [Italian] 
national karate team from 2002 through 2007." In her response to the director's Request for 
Evidence, prior counsel again asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion. The director found 
that the petitioner has not met this criterion. The AAO agrees. 
As supporting evidence, the petitioner has submitted a November 11, 2009 letter from ••• 
••••• inviting the petitioner "to teach one of the Masters Seminars - Black Belt Testing," on 
January 16, 2010. The letter references that the titioner taught a similar class in January 2009 for 
_'which was a huge success." March 29, 2010 letter also references that the 
petitioner conducted seminars in November 2008 and April 2009 for _ In his April 23, 2009 
letter, stated that intended to "feature [the petitioner] both as a competitor and as 
the representative face for He concluded his letter by expressing his "belief that [the 
petitioner] is essential for the progress of U.S. Karate .... [The petitioner] is the individual who 
could potentially lead [the] U.S. team to dominance." 
At most, the letters might show that the petitioner is a valued" trainer who has conducted three 
seminars before he filed the visa petition in December 2009, but they do not show that he has 
performed in a leading or critical role for _ Although _ speculated that the petitioner 
could playa role in training the U.S. karate team, at the time of the visa petition filing, the petitioner 
had not been involved with the U.S. karate team. In short, there is insufficient evidence in the record 
regarding the petitioner's position in the organizational hierarchy. The record also lacks sufficient 
evidence for the AAO to conclude that someone who has held three seminars in two years for_ 
which has an unspecified number of coaches and offers an unspecified number of seminars, has 
performed a leading or critical role for_ 
Similarly, the AAO finds that the evidence does not show that at ~etitioner filed the 
instant visa petition, he was . a lead' or critical role for ~ According to the 
November 5, 2009 letter from the petitioner was a "mentor and 
trainer of the Italia~national karate team from 2002 to 2007, and his "leadership ... 
[was] vital to shape athletes that went to win international competitions, increasing the level of 
visibility of [the] team to the highest international levels allowed to a karate 
federation." She attached a list of 2002 to 2007 competition results of a number of karate athletes 
whom the petitioner had coached. It is unclear from the evidence how many coaches_ 
-Page 15 
karate division, had when the petitioner was a coach and how they fit within the 
organizational hierarchy. It is unclear from the evidence if the petitioner single-handedly trained his 
athletes or instead trained them in a collaborative manner with other coaches. It is unclear from the 
evidence the significance or prestige of the awards or prizes presented to the athletes the 
had trained. Moreover, even assuming the petitioner had been a successful coach at 
the AAO has insufficient evidence to conclude that his role as a coach for 
d number of coaches, constitutes as having performed a leading or critical role for 
According, based on a review of all the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has 
not presented evidence showing that he has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. See 8 c'P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
When the petitioner's prior counsel initially filed the visa petition, she contended that the petitioner 
meets this criterion, stating that the sport of karate does not offer high salaries, but "high positions 
and prestige." Prior counsel asserted that "becoming the trainer and mentor of the [Italian] national 
team is significant remuneration to set him apart from others in his field." To support her assertions, 
prior counsel referenced an October 26, 2009 letter from ••••••••••••••• 
Although the director requested in her Request for Evidence that the petition file documents showing 
that karate coaches are in fact remunerated by positions of prestige and that being a coach of 
is a position of such prestige as to constitute high remuneration, the petitioner failed to 
submit the requested evidence. In her August 18, 2010 decision, the director found that the 
petitioner has not met this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has not challenged the director's 
decision as relating to this criterion. Accordingly, the AAO concludes that he has abandoned this 
issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 P.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 
4711885 at *9. 
If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may 
submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
aI, the petitioner asserted that the November 5, 2009 letter from 
regarding his membership in that association constitutes "comparable evidence" 
establishing his eligibility. The AAO disagrees. As suggested by the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4), the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to show 
eligibility when the ten categories of specific objective evidence, outlined in the regulations at 8 
c'P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), do not readily apply to the petitioner'S occupation as either a karate 
practitioner or coach. The AAO finds that the petitioner has not made such a showing. Instead, the 
petitioner has repeatedly maintained that at least four of the ten criteria apply to him as a karate 
practitioner and/or coach. As the petitioner has not shown that the criteria are not readily applicable 
to him, he has not shown that he may submit comparable evidence to establish his eligibility. See 
Page 16 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Moreover, the petitioner has not explained how a membership that does not 
meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) constitutes "comparable" evidence. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be 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 field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence, the most significant of which predates the filing of the instant petition by more than 15 
years, is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in 
a final merits determination. s Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation 
Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 
19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to 
decide visa petitions).