dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
v6 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0 4 
LIN 07 265 52537 
IN RE: 
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. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form 1-290B, 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. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
'dhn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, while we 
find that the petitioner has demonstrated that he performed a leading or critical role for a distinguished 
organization pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner has not overcome the director's 
ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification claimed. 
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 whch 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. 60897,60898-9 (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. tj 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. $204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a martial arts 
instructor, although the evidence submitted on appeal indicates that he also continues to compete. 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 outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualifjr 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
At the outset, we note that counsel implies on appeal that the director erred by requiring that the 
evidence for each criterion demonstrate international acclaim. Counsel cites non-precedent decisions 
by this office and federal district court decisions for the principle that the alien need only show national 
acclaim; thus, no acclaim outside of Nepal is required in this matter. The director, however, repeatedly 
stated that the petitioner had not provided evidence consistent with "national or international acclaim." 
(Emphasis added.) Thus, we are not persuaded that the director held the petitioner to a higher standard 
than the statutory standard for the classification sought. 
Counsel also asserts that the petitioner need not demonstrate sustained acclaim under each criterion, 
citing Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) and ~uni' v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 
(1995). In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit 
court, the AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in 
cases arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). The 
reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly 
before the AAO; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. 
We note, however, that the court in Buletini acknowledged that "the examiner must evaluate the 
quality, including the credibility, of the evidence presented to determine if it, in fact, satisfies the 
criteria." Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234. 
Consistent with the above, we find that if the statutory standard of national or international acclaim 
is to have any meaning, the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or 
consistent with such acclaim in that field. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 (S.D. Tex. 
March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 * 11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 
26,2005). 
Counsel's remaining concerns will be addressed under the regulatory criteria to which they relate. The 
petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3).' 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following Nepali certificates: gymnastics awards from the 1980s, a 1984 
first position certificate from the Second National Martial Arts Competition, an undated second 
position certificate from the Free Style Open Karate Competition organized by Shito-Ryu Karate Do 
and a 1984 second position certificate from the First Sagarmatha Tae Kwon Do Competition. The 
petitioner also submitted a 2003 "Hall of Fame" certificate recognizing the petitioner's "dedication to 
the martial arts" fiom the World United Martial Arts Federation (WUMA). In support of the 
significance of the Hall of Fame certificate, the petitioner submitted a list of 2003 awardees from 
WUMA's website, www.wuma.uk.com. The petitioner was one of 67 individuals to receive this 
recognition. The awards were issued in various categories, including several "dedication" awards, 
some to martial arts in general, some to an individual club, one to the awardee's students and one to 
"the arts." The list includes three "Kung Fu Instructor of the Year" awards, two "Long Serving 
Student" awards and several merely in a "Dan" (black belt category) level. 
On June 1 1,2008, the director issued a Request for Evidence (WE) advising that the gymnastic awards 
were not evidence of acclaim as a martial artist and requesting evidence of the significance, scope and 
criteria for the awards documented. In response, the petitioner asserts that gymnastics and Wushu 
martial arts are "two sides of a coin." The petitioner supported this assertion with materials about 
Wushu indicating that it included gymnastics as part of the training. The petitioner further asserts that 
his 1984 martial arts awards were national in scope. The petitioner submitted a letter from- 
- 
"World President" of WUMA, asserting that the Hall of Fame award was issued in 
recognition o t e petitioner's "many successful years within the Martial Arts." 
The director concluded that the letter fiom did not establish the significance of the Hall of 
Fame award, that the petitioner had not documented the significance of his martial arts awards, which 
are over 20 years old and cannot demonstrate sustained acclaim, and had not sufficiently established 
that gymnastics and martial arts are the same field. As with the martial arts awards, the director also 
noted that the gymnastics awards were over 20 years old. 
On appeal, counsel does not address the director's concerns directly. Rather, counsel simply reviews 
- - 
the evidence that was submitted and asserts that the martial arts and bastics awards were national in 
scope. The petitioner submits a new letter from stating the following requirements for the 
Hall of Fame award: 
1. Martial Artist must be a member of WUMA family. 
2. Refereed must be national4nternational tournaments. 
3. Must be hold [sic] Black best lSt Dan and above. 
Page 5 
4. Must have made contribution to the Nation as a coach, referee or an official. 
5. Dedication to the Martial Arts for the lifetime must have studied at least 10 
years actively in Martial arts any style Full-Semi-Light Contact and also 
Kata/Forms and Self-defence. 
letter includes WUMA3s website address. Moreover, the petitioner previously submitted 
materials from WUMA's website. As stated above. the website materials list 67 awardees. some of 
whom are only students. This information is not entirely consistent with 
 assessment of 
the award on appeal. By presenting evidence from WUMA's website, the petitioner has introduced the 
website into the record of proceeding for consideration. Thus, we have reviewed the site at 
www.wuma.uk.com. The website includes an online nomination form for the Hall of Fame award at 
www.wuma.uk.com/old/HOF/HOF%20Nomination02ODetails.htm (accessed July 28, 2009 and 
incornorated into the record). The nomination form indicates that the awards were initiated bv Mr. 
to reward instructois "with their own appreciative students nominating them." signific&tly, 
the form also contradicts the letter provided by on appeal, stating: 
The nominees need, not be in WUMA, this award is for ALL MARTIAL ARTISTS. 
You can use this form to nominate outstanding martial artists who have trained hard 
with no acclaim. Instructors who have worked hard teaching you with no acclaim, a 
fellow student who you feel is worthy, etc. Don't miss this one off [sic] chance to at last 
reward your Instructor or Student with what they deserve. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless 
the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582. 591-92 (BIA 1988). The record does not resolve the discre~ancies between the 
website materials; some of'which were submitted by the petitioner, and 
 assertions on 
appeal. Moreover, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. Id. at 591. 
While Wushu martial arts may incorporate some gymnastics techmques, we concur with the director 
that gymnastics is a separate field and that awards in gymnastics are no indication of acclaim in the 
martial arts. Moreover, as stated by the director, awards predating the filing of the petition by 20 years 
cannot demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner's own attestation cannot establish the significance of his 1984 martial arts awards. 
Specifically, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
Similarly, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 
Page 6 
19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). While the 1984 awards may have a national 
s must be nationally recognized. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter 
President of the Nepal Shito-Ryu Karate Do Association, National Sports 
Council, asserting that the Free Style Open Karate Competition took place at the National Stadium and 
was a "National Level Tournament." Objective evidence of this award's significance, such as evidence 
that the com etitions are covered in the major media or gamer any media attention, would have 
bolstered & . . statement. Regardless, the awards predate the petition by over 20 years and, 
- .. 
thus, are not evidence of sustained acclaim. 
As stated above, the petitioner has not presented consistent, credible evidence of the significance of his 
Hall of Fame award. Thus, this award cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
For the first time on appeal, the petitioner submits a 2003 certificate from the Sports Authority of India 
recognizing the petitioner's "active dedication and service in Martial Arts." The petitioner submitted 
no evidence that this award is a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize for excellence in 
the field. 
The petitioner also submitted 2008 U.S. award certificates fiom competitions that appear fiom the 
photographs to have taken place in hotel conference rooms rather than stadiums. These certificates, 
however, postdate the filing of the petition and cannot be considered evidence of the petitioner's 
eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. tj§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). 
Finally, some references, including whose credibility is seriously diminished, assert that 
the petitioner has coached successful students who won awards under his tutelage. Even if we 
considered the awards of an alien's students to be comparable evidence to meet this criterion pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(4), a claim not raised by the petitioner, the record does not contain the awards or 
evidence of their national significance. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
Initially, the petitioner claimed to be a "Life Member" of WUMA. The petitioner initially submitted 
official certificates documenting his full membership in the World Board of Black Belts (WBOB) of 
WUMA. The petitioner also submitted a letter certifying that the petitioner is the Director of the 
International Body Guard Union, Nepal (IBU - Nepal). In his RFE, the director requested evidence of 
the petitioner's life membership in WUMA and the membership requirements for any association of 
which the petitioner is a member. In response, the petitioner submitted a card documenting his WUMA 
Page 7 
life membership and a letter fromafirming the petitioner's life membership but providing 
no information as to the requirements for that membership. Regardless, for the reasons stated above, 
credibility is seriously diminished. 
The director noted that the petitioner had failed to respond to the request for evidence of the 
membership requirements for the associations of which he is a member. Counsel's appellate brief does 
not address this criterion and the petitioner submitted no new evidence addressing the membership 
criteria for the above associations. 
The membership criteria are an essential element of this criterion according to the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Despite the director's specific request, the petitioner has not 
documented the membership criteria of WUMA, WBOB or the IBU-Nepal. In light of the above, the 
petitioner has not provided the required initial evidence to 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 classfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Initially the petitioner submitted pictures of himself available at www.nepalhorizons.com and undated 
articles about himself appearing in Sahashrabdi and Naba Yuba. The petitioner also submitted brief 
mentions of himself appearing in 2002 and 2003 in Nepal Samacharpatra, Space Time, The Himalayan 
Times, The Himalayan New Service, Rajdhani and Kantipur Mangsir. The petitioner also submitted an 
article about that mentions the petitioner in an unidentified publication. 
In his WE, the director requested evidence of the significance of the above publications, such as 
circulation and distribution data. In response, the petitioner personally attests to the circulation and 
distribution of the publications, sometimes vaguely referencing them as "popular and read in Nepal" 
and sometimes citing www,wikipedia.org or www.newsofnepal.com/factsheetlsamachar.htm. With 
regard to information fiom Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content 
from this open, user-edited internet site.2 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 
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. 
Page 8 
(8' Cir. 2008). As such, we will not give significant weight to claims for which Wikipedia is the 
only cited source. We reviewed www.newsofnepal.com/factsheet/samachar.htm (accessed July 29, 
2009 and incorporated into the record of proceeding), which confirms that Nepal Samacharpatra is a 
"vernacular national daily" with a circulation of 800,000, making it the "second highest circulated 
daily" in Nepal. The petitioner submitted a 2001 article quoting him in Khel Sansar. 
The director concluded that much of the material only briefly mentioned the petitioner and that the 
petitioner had not provided the necessary evidence to demonstrate that any of the publications 
constitute major media. Counsel does not address this criterion on appeal but the petitioner submits 
information about www.ne~alhorizons.com, indicating it averages 10,000 visits daily and features 
videos, online radio, community pictures, blogs, news and interviews. The petitioner was put on 
notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the 
visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence and now 
submits it on appeal. However, the AAO will not consider this evidence for any purpose. See Matter 
of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 
1988). The appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of proceeding before the director. 
Regardless, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the posting of his video of his performance on a 
website that includes "community pictures" constitutes published material about him or is indicative 
of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
While we are satisfied that Nepal Samacharpatra is major media, the brief mention of the petitioner 
in this publication cannot be said to be published material "about" the petitioner. Despite the 
director's request, the petitioner has not submitted circulation, distribution or other data that might 
establish that the publications that did carry articles about the petitioner, Sahashrabdi and Naba Yuba 
are professional or major trade journals or other major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
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 spec$cation for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he is a qualified referee and has refereed competitions. The 
record contains no evidence that referees do more than enforce the rules. The petitioner also served on 
the jury of or as a judge for the Second Inter School Wushu Championship in an unknown year, the 
First Inter School Wushu Championships in 1994, the Fowth "Panathlon" International High School 
Karate and Kick Boxing Championship in Kathmandu in 1997, the First International Invitational Semi 
Contact Karate and Full Contact Kick Boxing Championship in Kathmandu in 2001, the First WUMA 
Goju - Kai - Karate (Woko) League Championship in 2002 and the First WUMA Wushu 
Championship in 2002. 
See htt~://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikivedia:General disclaimer, accessed on June 17, 2009, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
In his RFE, the director requested evidence of the selection criteria for these positions and the duties 
and responsibilities for these positions. In response, the petitioner submitted a letter from - 
asserting that the ~etitioner passed an exam to aualifi as an A Class Referee. which allows him to 
participate as a worldwide referee at WUMA events. 
 that A Class is an 
international referee, B Class is a national referee and C Class is a judge. As discussed above, the 
credibility of 
 bs seriously diminished. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted the evidence requested and that obtaining 
certification and performing "common" duties inherent to that certification cannot serve to meet this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel appears to be asserting that the director engaged in the "circular" 
reasoning that concerned the court in Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 123 1. Counsel states (grammar as it 
appears in original): 
The [director's] requirement that Petitioner has not garnered any recognition 
consistent with national or international acclaim as a result of providing these services 
(Judge, Referee) nor is there any indication that this places him among the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and therefore in the 
absence of such evidence, petitioner does not meet this criterion plainly gross 
misinterpretation of the law. 
First, as stated above, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States 
circuit court, the AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court 
in cases arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 715. The reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the 
AAO; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 7 19. Second, the 
Buletini court found that requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that a particular judging responsibility 
required extraordinary ability was circular. To avoid any analysis of the judging duties, however, 
would be to equate local, low-level judges in the judges' own community with national level judges. 
Obviously, most judging falls between the two extremes and must be evaluated on a case-by-case 
basis. Such evaluation considers not whether the position requires extraordinary ability, the concept 
rejected by the Buletini court, but whether the judging position is indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. Accord Yasar, 2006 WL 778623 at "9; All Pro Cleaning Services, 
2005 WL 4045866 at * 1 1. Those who are sought as judges by national entities or, on a case-by-case 
basis, local entities outside their communities have a stronger claim than those who serve on local 
panels. 
The petitioner's judging services in 2001 and 2002 appear to have been above the school level. That 
said, they were all the "first" of their kind and their reputation is undocumented. The purpose of the 
request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit 
sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(8) and (12). 
The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds 
for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). The petitioner's failure to provide evidence 
regarding the significance of these events, such as media coverage of these events or programs listing 
the number, age and status of competitors, precludes a finding that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Moreover, the record lacks evidence of the petitioner's service as a judge after 2002. Thus, the 
evidence is not indicative of sustained acclaim in 2007 when the petition was filed. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijicance in thejeld. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted letters from other martial artists supporting the petition. 
 Bina 
Khadkalama, a martial arts instructor in Virginia and the petitioner's firmer fellow-team member, 
broadly affirms the petitioner's "great influence" in the field. 
Coach of the Neoal Tai Chi Chum Federation. asserts that 
- lists his own accomplishments and asserts that he is "really proud" of his teacher, the 
petitioner. The director's RFE requested examples of specific original contributions and objective 
evidence of their significance in the field. In response, the petitioner relies on his length of time in the 
field, his leading roles for martial arts associations and his Hall of Fame Award. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not identified original contributions or demonstrated the 
impact of those contributions. On appeal, counsel does not address this criterion. The plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's contributions be both original 
and of major significance. The petitioner has not demonstrated that accruing lengthy experience or the 
mere act of sewing in a leading role is original. We note that the regulations already include a criterion 
addressing an alien's leading or critical role, 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which will be discussed 
below. We are not persuaded that evidence submitted to meet that criterion must also meet this 
criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence and the regulatory requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria. For the reasons 
discussed above, the petitioner has not established the significance of his Hall of Fame Award. 
Without evidence of specific original contributions that have demonstrably impacted the field of 
Wushu, the petitioner cannot demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner has documented that he has served as the Director of WUMA Nepal, the Nepali Branch 
Chief and Representative of the All Japan Karatedo Goju-Kai Association, Director of IBU-Nepal and 
Secretary General of the Nepal Wushu Association. The Nepal Wushu Association is affiliated with 
the International Olympic Committee. The petitioner is quoted in the Nepali media pursuant to his role 
with the Nepal Wushu Association. While not materials "about" the petitioner such that these quotes 
can serve to meet the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the coverage is probative 
evidence of both the nature of the petitioner's role with the Nepal Wushu Association and the 
reputation of the association itself. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established the reputation of the above organizations 
and had not submitted evidence "that distinguishes him from all other martial artists, officers, and key 
employees in the organizations." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the above roles demonstrate that the petitioner "is one of the very few 
recognized in Nepal as [sic] top of his field." We are persuaded that the Nepal Wushu Association 
enjoys a distinguished reputation and that the role of Secretary General is a leading or critical role for 
that association. Thus, the petitioner has established that he meet this single criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner initially submitted a letter from B.S. and Company Registered Auditors in Nepal 
asserting that, "according to the appointment/contract letters," the petitioner receives the equivalent of 
$300 fiom WUMA Nepal, $230 from Nepal Goju-Kai Karate-Do Association, $200 from the Nepal 
Wushu Association and $300 from Universal Body Guard and Security Service Pvt., Ltd. for a total of 
$1,000 per month. The letter further states that the average salary for a martial artist in Nepal is $300 
monthly. In his RFE, the director requested tax documents, wage statements or similar evidence of 
income and evidence that the petitioner's income is significantly high in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner's response did not address this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel notes that the court in Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1232, n. 12, found that the 
appropriate comparison was with others in the field in that country rather than with members of the 
field in the United States or internationally. We do not contest this principle. It is still the petitioner's 
burden, however, to demonstrate that that his wages compare with the most renowned and experienced 
members of his field in Nepal. 
First, the petitioner did not comply with the director's request for the primary evidence of his 
remuneration. Even assuming that tax documents or wage statements do not exist or are not available: 
the B.S. and Company letter submitted by the petitioner references "appointment/contract letters." The 
petitioner did not submit those letters. Second, the letter fiom B.S. and Company does not explain 
where it obtained information about the "average" martial artist salary in Nepal. Regardless, it is 
insufficient to document that the petitioner earns more than the average salary in his field. Rather, he 
must earn a "significantly high" salary. The record does not document top-level salaries for martial 
artists in Nepal. 
3 
 The unavailability or non-existence of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(2). When relying on secondary evidence, the petitioner must provide documentary evidence that 
the primary evidence is either unavailable or does not exist. Id. When relying on an affidavit, the petitioner 
must demonstrate that both primary and secondary evidence are unavailable. Id. 
Finally, the petitioner only earned higher than average remuneration by combining four salaries. It is 
unknown how many hours the petitioner worked for each employer. We cannot conclude that 
collecting higher than average wages by working more hours than average is indicative of or consistent 
with national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
martial arts instructor 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 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a martial arts instructor, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. 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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.