dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

identifyinr, cl.,~, . ieted to 
prevent cle .-..IT tlnwarranted 
invasion of' personal pnvse). 
U.S. Department of £lomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 0 
FILE: 0 SRC 08 800 02954 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 0~1 1 9 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. $ 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. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
JUbwndr/ 
fi Perrv Rhew 
chiif, Administrative 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 (AAO) on appeal.' 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. Lj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
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, 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(19) states in pertinent part: "Notzfication. An applicant or petitioner shall be sent 
a written decision on his or her application, petition, motion, or appeal. Where the applicant or petitioner has authorized 
representation pursuant to Sec. 103.2(a), that representative shall also be notified." In this matter, the petitioner's appeal 
was accompanied by an incomplete Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, for 
. The Form G-28 submitted on appeal bears the signature of the petitioner, but it was not signed by 
On September 24, 2009, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(2)(iii), the AAO submitted 
I 
a facsimile to 
 requesting that she submit a fully executed Form G-28, but she did not respond to the AAO's 
request. As 
 has submitted an improperly executed Form G-28, we cannot recognize her appearance as 
substituting for initial counsel, 
- 
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. 5 204.5(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). 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. 
This petition, filed on November 15, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinarv abilitv in the martial arts. Reeardine his ulans for emulovment in the United States. 
" 
the petitioner subditted a November 21, 2007 <om 
 of the Chinese ~haolih 
Martial Arts Institute, stating: "We would like to invite [the petitioner] to be a coach in my Institute. 
We believe he would bring talents and passion that he possesses to our team of coaches. This 
arrangement, of course, if [sic] contingent upon his obtaining the legal immigrant status in the 
United States." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from- 
Health Qigong Association of General Information of Sport of China, stating: 
"[Tlhe National Qigong Association decides to start a Qigong Association branch in San Francisco. 
For this purpose we are ready to high [sic] him as a new coach for the branch in America." 
We note that the majority of the documentation submitted with the petition relates to the petitioner's 
activities as a competitor and a martial arts performer. However, according to the letters from = 
and, the petitioner is seeking work in the United States as a martial arts coach. The 
statute and regulations require the petitioner to demonstrate that he seeks to continue work in his area of 
expertise in the United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8U.S.C. 
$8 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii), and 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(5). While a martial arts competitor and a coach 
certainly share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, 
competing and coaching are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in 
Federal Court. In Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
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 coach. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner intends to compete here in the United States. Rather, the 
evidence is clear that the petitioner intends to work as a coach. While the petitioner's 
accomplishments as a martial arts competitor are not completely irrelevant and will be given some 
consideration, ultimately he must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) through his 
achievements as a coach. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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 
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. 
fj 204.5(h)(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. 
fj 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following: 
1. Achievement certificate from the "'Deng Dian Cup' Nationwide Shaolin Kung-Fu 
Martial Arts Competition" stating that the petitioner placed second in the "Shaolin 
Traditional Hand Form" category (2000); 
2. Certificate from the "2001 Zheng Zhou City Wushu Competition" stating that the 
petitioner achieved first place in the "Men's Long Weapons" category; 
3. Certificate of achievement from the China Wushu Tournament stating that the petitioner 
won first place in the "Free-form Broad Sword" category (2001); 
4. Certificate of Appreciation from the 2004 "Pacific 'Elite' Wushu Kung Fu 
Championships" issued in recognition of the petitioner's "support and significant 
contribution to the success" of the 2004 championships; 
5. Certificate from the Qingdao, China International Taijiquan Invitational Tournament 
stating that the petitioner achieved first place in the "Group: Men B" contest of the "Chen 
Style Traditional Hand Forms" category (2005); and 
6. Certificate of achievement from the "Second World Traditional Wushu Championships" 
stating that the petitioner won first place in the "Men's Other Taichi Weapons" category 
(2006). 
Regarding item 2, this award reflects local recognition rather than a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. With regard to item 4, there is no evidence 
showing that this certificate is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence, rather than simply an acknowledgment of the petitioner's participation in the 
championships. In regard to items 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, although the record contains a "Certificate of 
Accuracy'' from for "the annexed document in Chinese," this certificate does not 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
specify which of the initial documentation to which it pertains. 
 The submission of a single 
translation certification that does not specifically identify the document or documents it purportedly 
accompanies does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3), which 
requires that any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied 
by a full English language translation that 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. Accordingly, without a proper certified English language translation, we cannot accord any 
weight to the preceding award certificates. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an October 28,2008 letter 
from counsel in which counsel addresses the significance of items 1 through 6. The record, 
however, does not include information about the petitioner's awards from the presenting 
organizations. Without documentary evidence to support the claims, the assertions of counsel will 
not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter oflaureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). In this 
case, the record does not include supporting evidence demonstrating the significance and magnitude 
of the preceding competitions so as to establish that prizes awarded at the competitions are 
nationally or internationally re~ognized.~ The name of the competitions alone, without evidence 
such as the number of entrants who competed in the petitioner's category or their level of 
experience, is not sufficient to establish that awards received at the competition are nationally or 
internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In 
this case, there is no evidence showing that petitioner's awards had a significant level of recognition 
beyond the competitive events where they were presented. 
The petitioner's response also included a "United Studios of Self Defense" certificate reflecting that 
he was "promoted to the rank of Promoter" at the martial arts school's San Francisco studio on 
March 28, 2008. The petitioner received this promotion in rank subsequent to the petition's filing 
date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider this 2008 rank promotion certificate in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no evidence 
showing that this certificate is tantamount to a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field rather than a form of internal recognition conferred by the school. 
Such rank promotions are inherent to the martial arts and they represent standardized progression to 
the next skill level. 
National, international, and regional competitions typically issue event programs listing the names of the participating 
contestants and the order of events. At a competition's conclusion, results are usually provided indicating how each 
participant performed in relation to the other competitors. The petitioner, however, has provided no evidence of the 
official comprehensive results for the competitive categories in which he received awards. 
Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by martial arts competitors coached 
stating that the petitioner "served as coach of the renowned Shaolin Temple Kung Fu School's 
provincial wushu team, representing China at numerous international competitions and exhibitions." 
letter does specifically identify the athletes coached by the petitioner or any awards that 
they won. In this case, there is no evidence showing that individuals coached primarily by the 
petitioner have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in the martial arts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets 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 class~jlcation 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.4 
The petitioner submitted a July 4,2004 article in the Arts and Entertainment section of the Denver Post 
entitled "From Grave to Stage" that includes a photograph of him and others on stage. This article is 
about writer and director Dennis Law and his production "Terracotta Warriors" (in which the petitioner 
performed) rather than the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted a July 5, 2006 issue of Emirates 
Today that includes a captioned photograph of the petitioner stating: "Eight Kung Fu performers from 
China show off their martial artistry at Ibn Battuta Mall during the Dubai Art Summer Surprises week." 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[plublished material about the alien in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media" including "the title, date, and author of 
the material." The two newspaper photographs submitted by the petitioner do not meet these 
requirements. Further, there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that the preceding 
newspapers qualify as professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he 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 alliedfield of specification for which classlJication is 
sought. 
4 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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." The evidence submitted 
to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acc~aim.~ 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. 
tj 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Appreciation from the 2004 "Pacific 'Elite' Wushu Kung Fu 
Championships" issued in recognition of his "support and significant contribution to the success" of 
the 2004 championships. On appeal, the petitioner states that this certificate is evidence that he was 
a sitting judge of a martial art techniques competition, but the information on the certificate does not 
support his claim and there is no evidence from the competition organizer confirming his 
participation as a judge. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). Further, there is no evidence such as the specific competitive categories judged by 
the petitioner, the names of the participating athletes, and their level of expertise. Without evidence 
establishing that the petitioner has actually participated as a judge and that his activities involved 
judging top athletes at the national or international level or were otherwise consistent with this 
highly restrictive classification, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of reference letters from representatives of 
organizations such as the Sifu Meng Academy, the Chinese Shaolin Martial Arts Institute, the Yong 
Fei Shaolin Kung Fu School, the Health Qigong Association of General Information of Sport of 
China, and the United States Traditional Kung Fu Wushu Federation praising his talents as a martial 
arts competitor and a performer. Talent in one's field, however, is not necessarily indicative of 
original contributions of major significance in the field. The record lacks evidence showing that the 
petitioner has made original contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted his field. In 
evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions 
or how those contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2009 WL 
2836453, *5 (9th Cir. 2009). 
5 
 We note that although not binding precedent, this interpretation has been upheld in Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006) and All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 
2005). 
With regard to the petitioner's athletic, artistic, and coaching achievements, the reference letters do 
not specify exactly what his original contributions in the martial arts have been, nor is there an 
explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of 
those offering letters of support, there is no evidence demonstrating that he has made original artistic 
or athletic contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate 
the extent of the petitioner's influence on other martial arts practitioners nationally or internationally, 
nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal 
contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major 
significance that one would expect of that one would expect of a martial artist who has sustained 
national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's 
work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his sport, or has otherwise risen to 
the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his participation in ensemble performances of the China Kung 
Fu Troupe. There is no evidence showing that these performances were consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of his field or that his participation equates to the 
exclusive showcases of an artist's work that are contemplated by this regulation for visual artists. The 
plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as 
sculptors and painters) rather than for performing artists. The ten criteria in the regulations are 
designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. In the 
performing arts, acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of appearing in public, but 
rather by attracting a substantial audience. For this reason, the regulations establish separate criteria, 
especially for those whose work is in the performing arts. The petitioner's stage performances are 
far more relevant to the "commercial successes in the performing arts" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established 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. 
At issue for ths criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his participation in ensemble performances of the China Kung 
Fu Troupe. Aside from the two aforementioned newspaper photographs and self-serving 
promotional material for the performances, there is no evidence showing that this troupe has a 
distinguished reputation. Further, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's role was 
leading or critical for the troupe. The record lacks documentation indicating how the petitioner's role 
differentiated him from the other performers in his troupe. For example, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner's name frequently received top billing or that his troupe's popularity 
increased when he was known to be performing. Accordingly, the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the success or standing of his troupe to a degree 
consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thefield. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that that he "has been receiving around nine hundred thousand 
Chinese dollars annual salary including awards and consultation for martial arts. This is five times 
more than other competitor's remuneration." The record, however, does not include evidence to 
support these assertions regarding the petitioner's earnings. For example, there is no evidence (such 
as payroll records or income tax returns) showing the petitioner's actual earnings for any specific 
period of time or statistics reflecting salary levels for martial artists. 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. at 158, 165. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's earnings were significantly high in 
relation to others in his field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofjce 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he "had performed 20 shows in the United States and Canada with 
three million U.S. dollars in investment. Those shows generated more than four million U.S. dollars in 
sale." The record, however, does not include evidence to support the petitioner's claim regarding the 
sales revenue for his productions. Further, there is no evidence showing that the success of the 
shows was primarily attributable to the petitioner. 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. at 158, 165. This regulatory criterion requires evidence of commercial 
successes in the form of "sales" or "receipts;" simply submitting evidence indicating that the petitioner 
participated in various ensemble performances cannot meet the plain language of this criterion. The 
record does not include evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" showing that the petitioner 
achieved commercial successes in a manner consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of his field. For example, there is no evidence showing that petitioner's 
performances consistently drew record crowds, were regular sell-out performances, or resulted in 
greater audiences than other similar performances that did not feature him. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Finally, we note that although the record contains evidence of the petitioner's prior approval as an P-3 
nonimmigrant, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, more stringent standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions 
are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. 
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 
1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS 
spends less time reviewing I- 129 nonimmigrant petitions than I- 140 immigrant petitions, some 
nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 
2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th 
Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the 
original visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
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 International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Cornrn. 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). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), afyd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a martial arts 
coach, competitor, or performer 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. 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 AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 8 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka 
v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
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. 8 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.