dismissed EB-1A Case: Kickboxing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-A-Z-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 5. 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a kick boxer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l )(A). 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(I )(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 Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief. contending that he satisfies 
at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of 1-A-Z-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 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). 
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. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fultilling the 
required number of criteria. considered in the context of a tina! merits determination): see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the ·'truth is to be 
detern1ined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility. both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence. to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Maller l~(Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a kickboxer who has fought within the Because he has not 
indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must 
satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. s 204 .5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the 
Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, awards under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the following additional criteria: memberships 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 1 We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a tinding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
1 
The Petitioner indicates that he no longer intends to pursue his eligibility for the other criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), nor does the record support a finding that he meets them. Accordingly, we will not further address 
them in our decision. 
2 
.
Matter of 1-A-Z-
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser national(r or internationally rec.,w~nized prizes or 
award'ifor excellence in the field olendeavor. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record indicates that he received 
two third place finishes in the from the 
Accordingly. the Petitioner demonstrated that 
he satisfies this criterion, and we concur with the Director's findings for this criterion. 
Documentation (~l the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought. 'rtJhich require outstanding achievements ql their members. as judged hy recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based on membership with the of 
the In support of his contention. he references 
screenshots from the website www entitled ' 
· where it lists him under 
In addition, the record contains a recommendation letters 
from kickboxing coach, who stated that the Petitioner ''placed third [at the 2012 
and received a diploma entitling him to be placed on the 
in 2012," and , former amateur boxer, who indicated that he 
was working with the Petitioner "when he qualified for the in 2012." The 
documentation, however, does not demonstrate that the Petitioner was in tact a member of the 
Instead , the evidence reflects that he was a candidate, entitled to, or qual(fied for 
membership. 
Even if the Petitioner established his membership, he did not provide documentation 
indicating that such membership requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts, consistent with the requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Further, the Petitioner asserts that "membership in the 
automatically qualified him to compete in the In support of his assertions, he cites 
to his own affidavit that accompanied the initial filing of the petition, in which he claimed that he 
"qualified too late for the 2012 Besides this affidavit, the Petitioner did not submit 
corroborating evidence reflecting that membership with the automatically qualities 
athletes for the team. Regardless, he did not demonstrate that he was a member of the 
team for consideration under this criterion. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show 
that he satisfies 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.fi>r which class(fication is sought. Such evide~ce 
shall include the title, date, and author ~lthe material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
3 
.
Malter of 1-A-Z-
The Petitioner argues that a screenshot entitled. '' from 
www satisfies this criterion. Although the Petitioner is mentioned one time, the 
screenshot is about the team sponsored by · 
competing at an open championship in Russia rather than published material about 
him.2 Articles that do not pertain to a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See. e.g .. 
Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin. 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJ.J at *L *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). In addition, he did not include the 
author of the material as required by this regulatory criterion. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not 
show that the website is a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel. as a judge oj'the work (~l 
others in the same or an allied field (?l:-.pec(fication for which classification ;,,.sough!. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner contends that his "Judge Referee Card'' demonstrates that he was a ' 
' and was subsequently elevated to '· ,. The 
Petitioner provided a certificate from the 
ref1ecting that he "is a and was later 
assigned to ' ' In addition, the Petitioner submits an "Order'' entitled, "On approval of 
the regulations on sports judges," from the 
showing a regulation to establish the procedure of assigning classification 
categories for "sports judges." Further. the Petitioner offers a letter from 
designated director for the stated that the Petitioner 
"participated as a judge in the period since 2013 to 2015 years.'' Moreover. 
included a list of open championships and tournaments and specitied that the Petitioner was a 
"referee'' for each event and concluded that he was a '·referee of 170 fights.'' 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence 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." Although the Petitioner asserts that he was issued a 
"Judge Referee Card," his card indicates his qualification as a '·referee." Moreover, while 
claims that the Petitioner participated as a "judge," he lists his role in each match as a 
"referee." letter does not describe the duties of a referee to demonstrate whether 
they involve evaluating or judging the work or skills of competitors as opposed to enforcing the rules 
of a match and ensuring sportsmanlike competition. Moreover, the record lacks other evidence. such 
as official competition rules for the tournaments listed in the letter. showing that serving as a 
"referee" in this instance equates to participating as a "judge'' of the work of others. Without further 
2 
The record contains similar screenshots reflecting coverage of the at tournaments that, likewise. do 
not reflect published material about the Petitioner. In addition. these screenshots do not contain the date or author of the 
material, and the Petitioner did not show that the screenshots appeared in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. 
4 
.
Matter (?11-A-Z-
documentation, such as evidence that he awarded points or exercised his judgment in choosing the 
ultimate winner, evidence regarding officiating at a match is insufficient to meet this criterion. For 
these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perfhrmed in a leading or critical role fiJr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's certificates ret1ecting tinishes and participation in 
tournaments did not demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role. On appeal. the 
Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider his "major role as a member of the 
" Further, 
he argues that "being a member of the in itself 
shows that the athlete has a critical role to play in the country's national sport organization:·-' 
As previously discussed under the membership criterion, the Petitioner did not establish that he was 
a member of the Regardless, we disagree that being a member of a 
in-and-of-itself sufficiently demonstrates a critical role. Instead, the Petitioner must show how 
his performance was considered essential to the team's overall performance. ln general. a critical 
role is commonly one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the 
organization or establishment. 
Although the Petitioner contends he is a member, he did not indicate that he participated in any 
competitions , tournaments, or matches with the Instead, the Petitioner's certificates 
reflect his individual participation in championships and matches since 2012 in local or regional 
tournaments, such as the and the 
Moreover , he did not identify what role or position he claims to 
have performed with the team. Furthermore. he did not show how he contributed to the team and 
whether he performed in a role that led to its overall success or standing. In addition, neither letter 
from or explained the Petitioner's accomplishments on the 
or how his role was essential to the team's achievements. Finally, the Petitioner did not refer to 
documentation or establish that the enjoys a distinguished reputation as required 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Accordingly. the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result. 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 finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the 
3 
The Petitioner does not argue, nor does the record reflect, that he performed in a leading role for the 
Matter of 1-A-Z-
foregoing reasons. the Petitioner has not shown that he qualities for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ol/-A-Z-, ID# 943303 (AAO Feb. 5, 2018) 
6