dismissed EB-1A Case: Kickboxing

idep: ifi :FC da?~ dclted to 
 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
preib:;- ;:-it 1-1 u!'$xm-.ranted 
 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals 
iwasio3 a$ ps~~~~~d pn~ac~ 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
pm1~,nc [p~p";' 
 and Immigration 
Services 
(3% 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 07 095 53775 
 MAR 19 2009 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 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). 
Acting Chief, -~dministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the record did not establish that the beneficiary 
had achieved the sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The director also found the petitioner had not established that he is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(I) 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. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on January 3 1,2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
kickboxer. Initially, the petitioner submitted news articles, award certificates, pictures of awards, programs for 
different competitions, invitations to participate in kickboxing events, and competition results. In response to 
the February 15,2007 Request for Evidence ("RFE"), the petitioner submitted his fighting license, news articles, 
information about the International Wushu Sanshou Competition, the International Wushu Federation ("IWUF") 
Constitution, information about the IWUF, information about the Sanshou World Cup, and pictures of the 
petitioner fighting and receiving awards. With his brief on appeal, the petitioner submitted his fight license, a 
fight contract, information about a sponsoring organization, a certificate of appreciation, a certificate of 
participation, five award certificates, certificates of training, a tournament invitation, news articles, and 
tournament results. 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seek to continue work in his area of expertise in the United 
States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(5). Such 
evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as 
contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he intends to continue his work in the 
United States. With his appellate brief, the petitioner submitted a copy of his professional license and a contract 
to participate in an event on June 29, 2007. The contract is dated May 1,2007, which postdates the date of this 
petition. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). Even if this contract had been entered into before the filing of 
this petition, it would be insufficient to show that the petitioner intended to continue his work in the United 
States as the contract is for a one time event and not a contract for continuing employment. Although the alien 
may self-petition for an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
8 1153(b)(l)(A), the statute requires that the alien show that he will continue to work in his area of expertise in 
the United States. The petitioner here has provided insufficient evidence to establish that he will pursue 
kickboxing in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). 
Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, at least 
three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. $204.5@)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would 
not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(2). We address the evidence submitted and counsel's contentions in the following discussion of the 
regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim eligibility under any criteria 
not addressed below. 
6) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
petitioner also submitted a certificate of participation as the 
 in the 2006-07 First 
Arabian Championship for youth. 
Although documentation of these various awards appears in the record, information such as the significance and 
national or international recognition of the competitions is notably absent. Except for the World Wushu 
Championship tournament, the petitioner submitted no background information about any of the other 
tournaments to evidence the tournaments' prestige or reputation within the kickboxing community. Some of the 
tournaments, such as the Republic Clubs Super Championship and the Republic Championship of Regions in 
the SANDA, seem to be regional in nature. Others, like the Sanshou World Cup which had only four 
competitors out of which the petitioner placed second, do not seem to be significant tournaments so would not 
convey acclaim especially for a finish other than first. 
Counsel states in his brief on appeal that the petitioner is "a world champion for his weight category," but does 
not specify how the petitioner came by this title or how long ago it was awarded. Although articles appear in the 
record about the WWC documenting the petitioner's participation in the Championship in 1997, 1999, and 
2001, the petitioner only won gold at the 1997 Championship. The petitioner presented no evidence showing 
that coming in second or third place as opposed to winning the weight category conveys any sort of acclaim. 
Moreover, the statute and regulations require that the petitioner's national or international acclaim be sustained. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153@)(2)(A)(i); 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner 
presented no evidence that he won another major tournament after the 1999 championship and even if the other 
tournaments were shown to convey acclaim, the petitioner presented evidence that the last prize was won in 
August 2003, i.e. more than three years prior to the filing of this petition. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a certificate of participation and a tournament invitation letter evidencing that 
he coached youth competitors after his last win in 2005 as a competitive kickboxer. Although experience as an 
athlete is undoubtedly relevant to coaching or instructing the same sport, the two endeavors are not identical and 
an alien who seeks to enter the United States as a coach or instructor under the extraordinary ability immigrant 
classification cannot rely solely on prior acclaim as an athlete. While a competitive kickboxer and kickboxing 
instructor certainly share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on a different set of basic skills. Thus, competing 
as a kickboxer and instructing other kickboxers are not the same area of expertise.' In this instance, the record 
reflects that the sole award for which the petitioner has established international recognition, his gold at the 
WWC, was received in 1997, ten years prior to filing. Although the petitioner has demonstrated receipt of 
awards at several subsequent competitions, fiom the evidence provided, the record does not establish that these 
awards are internationally or nationally recognized prizes or awards. While we may also consider the level at 
which the petitioner has acted as an instructor, the record fails to demonstrate that any of the petitioner's 
students have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards such that the petitioner's prior 
1 
While not binding precedent, we note that the reasoning contained in Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F.Supp.2d 914, 918 
(N.D.Il1.2002), supports this interpretation: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as working in 
the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any profession in that 
field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not imply that he also has 
extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, 
umpire or instruct. 
Page 5 
success as a competitive kickboxer can be said to have been sustained through his success as a coach. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish his receipt of lesser national or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards in his field as well as the sustained acclaim required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in theJield for which classzjication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion by virtue of his membership in the IWUF. In order to 
demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the 
association requires outstanding achievement for admission to membership. Membership requirements based 
on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, proficiency certifications, 
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 IWUF Constitution states that membership is awarded to "Wushu governing bodies of all nations or 
regions" limited to only one per country or region which body is recognized by the National Olympic 
Committee or Sports Authority of that nation. The IWUF does not contain provisions for personal 
memberships for athletes, coaches, or judges of the sport and the petitioner provided no membership card or 
other evidence of individual membership in the IWtJF. Even if he had presented a membership card, nothing 
in the IWUF Constitution indicates that outstanding achievement is a prerequisite to membership or that 
membership applications are judged by recognized experts in the field. 
For the above stated reasons, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
(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 classiJication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would 
not earn acclaim at the national level from 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.2 
The petitioner submitted a number of articles that mentioned him but do not focus on him or his achievements: 
an August 13, 1999 article entitled "Boxing and Kick Boxing Promise High Expectations," "12 'Kick Boxers' 
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. 
Represents Egypt in the Arab Tournament in Joran" (mistakes in original), an October 17, 1999 article entitled 
"Egyptian Team Won Three Different Medals in the World Championship in Honk [sic] Kong," "Team of 
Styles . . . A Specialized Expert Needed," "The Kung Fu Team in the World Championship in Italy Today," 
SANDA Wins Five Medals and Fourth Place ANF Styles are on the Way," a February 1 1, 1999 article entitled 
"Jacky Chan Opens World Championship in Kung Fu," an October 29, 1999 article entitled "In Hong Kong 
Today . . . Egyptian and Chinese Teams Prepare for the World Championship," a July 18-24, 2002 article 
entitled "Everybody was kung fu fighting," a December 23-29, 1999 article entitled "Our very own Bruce Lee," 
a July 27, 2002 article entitled "China leads insanshou Cup," an August 1, 2002 article entitled "Armed forces 
heroes . . . gains," a July 3, 1997 article entitled "Egypt Dominates the First Arab Championship in the Kun [sic] 
Fu and Lebanon will Organize the Second Championship," a November 19, 1999 article entitled "Kung Fu . . . 
In the African Championship in Algeria," "SANDA Wins Five Medals and Fourth Place and Styles are on the 
Way," an October 22,2003 article entitled "Strict Egyptian Caution at the World Kung Fu Championship," and 
"Egypt won Fourth Place in the Kung Fu World Championship." The plain language of the regulatory criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be about the alien. These articles are not 
primarily about the petitioner, but instead are about different events or even different people. In addition, the 
majority of these articles do not include a date or author's name in violation of the plain language of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner also s 
undated article titled 
in Al-Ahram 
published in the 
' (errors in original) published in the Journal of El-Safer El-Riady, an April 1998 article 
entitled "[the ~etitionerl 
 in El Shabal. an undated article 
- - 
periodical. Even though these articles are 
 about the 
 where a publication is even identified, 
the record contains no evidence such as the circulation of these publications, or any other evidence to establish 
that the sources of these articles are professional, major trade, or other major media publications. In addition, 
the information submitted about these articles does not comply with the express terms of this criterion as the 
record lacks the date and author of many of the articles. Finally, the translations of these articles do not 
comply with 8 C.F.R. $ 103,2(b)(3), which requires a translation of the entire document rather than a 
translation of only excerpted portions of the articles. Without the complete information required by the 
criterion and a full translation of the articles, we cannot consider these articles in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
(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 alliedjield of speczjication for which classzj?cation is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must 
be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a 
national competition for top athletes is of far greater probative value than judging a regional youth or amateur 
competition. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he was invited to judge the 2004 United States International 
Invitational Kuoshu (Wushu, Kung Fu) Championship Tournament. However, the petitioner submitted no 
evidence that he accepted this invitation and actually participated as a judge at the Tournament. Although 
the petitioner submitted the "Rules for International Wushu Sanshou Competition," which specifies the 
duties of the judges, the rules do not state, for example, how those judges are selected. Therefore, even if the 
petitioner demonstrated his participation as a judge, by failing to submit fiu-ther evidence regarding the 
competition, such as the names of those he evaluated or their level of expertise, the petitioner has failed to 
establish that his activities involved judging top competitors or were otherwise consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top level of his field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner fails to meet this criterion. 
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. Nor is there clear evidence showing that 
the petitioner will continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has 
not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
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.