dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarrantecl 
invasion of personal privac) 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 1 0 2009 
LIN 06 212 52745 
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. 9 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 fh-ther 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 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. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
4w&iL 
/ Jo . Grissom 
y~cting i. Chief, 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 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraor- ability in athletics. The director determined that the record did not establish that the petitioner had 
achieved the sustained national or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordmry 
ability. The director also found the petitioner had not established that she is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of her field of endeavor. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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, 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 her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 12, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordmry ability as a 
martial artist. Initially, the petitioner submitted award certificates for contests in 1992-93, a certificate awarding 
her the title of Grand Master of Tai Chi, news reports, certificates of appreciation for judging martial arts 
tournaments, certificates of appreciation for participating in various events, background information about Tai 
Chi, verification of her position with several organizations, and seven letters of recommendation. In response to 
the April 5,2007 Request for Evidence ("RFE), the petitioner submitted awards certificates for contests held in 
1985-1989, instructor certifications, additional certificates of appreciation for judging martial arts tournaments, 
Page 3 
appointments for positions with organizations, additional news reports, certificates of participation in various 
events, a letter verifying employment, and seven additional letters of recommendation. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5@)(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 a such an award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5@)(3) outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualifL 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. 9 204.5@)(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. 
4 204.5(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. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the3eld of endeavor. 
The petitioner states in her appellate brief that she retired from competition after 1993 and that she focused on 
her work as a coach and instructor. Although a nexus exists between playing and coaching a given sport, to 
assume that every extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching would be too speculative.' To 
resolve this issue, in a case where an alien has clearly achieved national or international acclaim as an athlete 
and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at a national or international level, we can consider the 
totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such 
that we can conclude that coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. A coach who has an 
established successful history of coaching athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible 
claim; a coach of novices does not. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that she won the Tai Chi Fist Championship in the 1985 China 
National Traditional Martial Arts Tournament and the 1989 China National Wu Dang Martial Arts Competition; 
that she was champion of the Traditional Tai Chi Broadsword at the 1987 Shaanzi Hua Xia International Tai 
Chi Tournament; champion in the 1992 2"d China International Tai Chi Festival; and champion in the Tai Chi 
sword division of the 1993 Hua Xia Cup Tai Chi Competition Toumament. The petitioner also submitted 
certificates of appointment as Tai Chi Envoy for the Northern California Chinese Athletic Federation, as Tai Chi 
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. 
Ambassador by the Journal of Tai Chi Magazine, and as Invited Researcher in Tai Chi by "The Journal of Wu 
Dang." In her response to the RFE, the petitioner stated that she won the Tai Chi fist championship at the 2000 
China National Wu Dang Martial Arts Competition, however, no evidence of that award is present in the record. 
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 (Cornm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 1. & N. Dec. 190 (Reg. Comrn. 1972)). 
Although documentation of these various awards appears in the record, information about the significance and 
national or international recognition of the competitions is notably absent. The awards are accompanied by no 
information about the contests, including how the contests were nationally or internationally recognized in the 
field of Tai Chi or in the general area of martial arts. The petitioner did not submit evidence such as the number 
of participants in any event, the standing or recognition of the other participants in the events, or any other 
indication that winning any of these prizes or awards confers national or international recognition for excellence 
in Tai Chi or the martial arts. 
In the appellate brief, the petitioner states that she should not be penalized for not being able to provide evidence 
of the competitions that she won in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the petitioner's inability to provide award 
certificates for contests occurring &om ten to twenty years ago does not change the result of our analysis and 
instead, highlights the fact that she has failed to sustain her acclaim as a competitor. Even assuming that the 
petitioner won the 2000 competition cited in her RFE response, which we do not, she has not presented evidence 
of sustained acclaim as that award preceded the filing of this petition by six years. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. !j 1 153(b)(2)(A)(i); 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). 
Therefore, even if the petitioner had provided the requisite evidence to prove that the competitions that she 
won are nationally or internationally recognized, she did not provide any evidence that she sustained that 
acclaim through her work coaching or training, such as through nationally or internationally awards won by 
her students. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classiJication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or3elds. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the 
association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition 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 petitioner claims that she meets this criterion by virtue of her certification as Grand Master in Tai Chi by 
the China Chang An International Tai Chi Association, her receipt of the 6th level Dan black belt in Tai Chi 
as recognized by the International Taiji I Quandao Association ("ITIQA"), and her participation in Tai Chi 
organizations. The petitioner also provided a certificate that she is qualified as an instructor in Taiji Master 
as a 7th degree black belt. We acknowledge that the petitioner achieved both the title of Grand Master and 
the ITIQA black belt certification and was qualified as an instructor, however, the petitioner has not shown 
that an association of Grand Masters, 6th level Dan black belts, or instructors exists. Even if the petitioner 
had introduced evidence that such associations exist, she did not provide evidence that the organizations 
require outstanding achievements of their members as opposed to proficiency in Tai Chi at a particular level. 
The petitioner presented evidence that she was named the secretary-general of the ITIQA in 1994, director of 
Hong Kong China Chan An International Taiji Quan Society for 1998-2000, vice president of the China 
Chang An International Tai Chi Association in 2000, associate director of Shaanzi Chinese Tai Chi Tui Shou 
Dao Center in 2000, vice president of the ITIQA in 2001, and vice president of the Wu Dang Zhao Bao Tai 
Chi Research Institute in 2002. The petitioner presented no evidence that any of these associations have 
members or that any membership was awarded based on her outstanding achievements by recognized experts 
in the field. Moreover, claims related to her position within these organizations are more relevant to the 
criterion at 204.5(h)(viii) and will be further discussed there. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner also provided a "Rewarding Certification" stating that her name would 
be included in the book "the Name List of Contemporary Chinese Elites in Martial Art Field." Again, 
however, again, the petitioner presented no evidence that an association exists in conjunction with this 
certificate or that the judges of prospective members are recognized experts in the field. 
For all of the above reasons, the petitioner has not established that she 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 thejield 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 fiom 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 four editions of "The Journal of Tai Chi," two editions of "The Journal of Wu Dang," 
and a March 25, 2006 article from "World Journal." One of the editions of "The Journal of Tai Chi" is dated 
2007, so was published after the petitioner filed the instant petition and cannot be considered. 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. $4 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 
45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The articles and journals that predate the filing of this petition do not contain the 
requisite translation as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). Instead of including a translation of the material, 
the petitioner submitted a summary of what was in the publication. For example, the "translation" submitted 
for volume 4 of the 2006 "The Journal of Wu Dang" states: "[the petitioner] was featured on the front color 
2 
 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. 
Page 6 
page;" the "translation" submitted of the "World Journal" article states: "The article announces that 
International Martial Arts Tournament will be held on June 18,2006 in San Jose, CA. Many top martial arts 
masters will participate in this event. Here, Tai Chi master [the petitioner] was pictured with other masters 
and event officials." A summary of what is presented in the foreign language is not the same as a translation 
of that item. Without the full translation, we are unable to determine that these materials are relevant to this 
criterion. 
Even if we were to accept the summaries of the material as accurate, which we do not, the plain language of the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be about the alien and be 
published in a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. None of the above 
listed articles talks about the petitioner; instead, the journals mostly only included a photograph of the petitioner 
practicing Tai Chi. In her appellate brief, the petitioner contends that "most reports about martial arts masters 
focus on various pictures, using a wide range of pictures to show the master." However, 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. at 165. The page included about volume 3 of the 2006 
"The Journal of Tai Chi" states that the petitioner wrote a two page article that appeared in the publication. The 
information submitted contains no indication that the subject of the article is the petitioner. 
Finally, as it relates to the regulatory requirement that the material be published in major media, the only 
information submitted about these news sources is the statement by the translator that the publications are 
"prestigious and widely circulated professional journals" and a May 3, 2007 letter fiom CEO of 
Pure Shaolin Kung Fu School, which states that the "Journal of Tai Chi . . . is probably the most prestigious 
journal in the Tai Chi field [and] is read by tens of thousands of martial arts practitioners across the world." The 
petitioner provides no information as to how the translator or is qualified to make such a determination 
regarding the standing of the publication, and she provides no objective evidence such as circulation statistics or 
other data to show that the publication is a form of major media. 
In her response to the RFE, the petitioner submits a document titled "Translation & Description," which states 
that a "special report about the 2oth Anniversary of the International Wushu Sanshou Dao Association (IWSD) 
in 2007" reported about her. This "special report" was issued after the time of filing and thus we are unable to 
consider it. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. at 49. Even if we were to 
consider it, the "special report" contains only photographs of the petitioner and no information was provided 
about the publication to conclude that it amounts to major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she 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 alliedfield of specz3cation for which classification is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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, 
- Page 7 
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. 5 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a 
national competition or a competition for top athletes is of far greater probative value than judging a regional, 
youth or amateur competition. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that she judged the 1995 Tai Chi Pushing Hands Tournament, the 3d Wu 
Dang Fist Competition Conference in 1995, the 5" China International Tai Chi Competition in 1995, the 14" 
Annual UC Berkeley Chinese Martial Arts Tournament in 2006 and 2007, the 2006 Tiger Claw Elite 
Championship & Disney's Martial Arts Festival, the 2005 and 2006 International Martial Arts Tournaments, 
and the 2"* Annual Wulin Cup Martial Arts Championship in 2006. The petitioner submitted no information 
such as information about individuals who were judged by the petitioner or about how she was selected to be 
a judge for these competitions. The only information provided about any of the tournaments was about the 
International Martial Arts Tournament, which indicates that martial artists of varying levels of skill and 
varying ages competed. A May 18, 2007 letter from - chair of the International Martial Arts 
Tournament, states that the petitioner was chosen as a judge "based on recommendations from many other 
martial arts masters." The petitioner submitted no information about the reputation, significance, or 
magnitude of these tournaments for us to be able to ascertain whether her participation as a judge is 
indicative of the national or international acclaim at the very top level of the martial arts field that is required 
for this highly restrictive classification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion by virtue of her creation of "a new style of Tai Chi, called Tai Chi 
Yi, which is a 9-Dan level Tai Chi system." A June 19,2006 letter fro-director and chief coach of 
Shaolin Kung Fu International, recognizes that the petitioner "is one of the founders of the Tai Chi Yi style 
martial arts" and states that the "dozens of new movements . . . are becoming more popular over the years." A 
June 2, 2005 letter fiom president of Shou-Yu Liang Wushu Taiji Qigong Institute, also 
recognized the petitioner's work in helping to create Tai Chi Yi and stated that "This new style of Tai Chi has 
attracted immediate attention from other Tai Chi masters and has been recognized as a significant development 
of the traditional Tai Chi." A June 7,2006 letter fiom, president and head coach of Wu Dang Zhao 
Bao Tai Chi Research Institute, states that the petitioner's help in creating Tai Chi Yi "is considered by many as 
one of the major achievements in Tai Chi in the last few decades." 
Letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner alone are not sufficient to meet this criterion. The 
opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successM 
extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 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 from experts supporting the petition 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. 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 a martial arts performer who has sustained national or international acclaim. In this 
case, although the letters of recommendation state that the petitioner co-founded Tai Chi Yi and that the new 
form has made a major contribution to the martial arts field, the petitioner presented no further objective 
evidence to indicate that the petitioner's techniques have been widely adopted throughout the sport or have 
significantly influenced how Tai Chi is practiced. Without objective evidence such as news articles, flyers of 
other masters teaching the form, or tournament categories of Tai Chi Yi, for example, we are unable to conclude 
that Tai Chi Yi is an original form of Tai Chi that demonstrates that the petitioner has made a contribution of 
major significance to the martial arts field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she is eligible under this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thefield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As noted above in our discussed under criterion iii, the translator indicated that the petitioner wrote a two 
page article in volume 3 of the 2006 "The Journal of Tai Chi." No full translation was provided, however, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Without a full translation, we are unable to consider this article. No 
further evidence relevant to this criterion has been submitted. As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
eligibility under this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien hasper$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner asserts eligibility under this criterion by virtue of the same affiliations as discussed above in 
criterion ii: i.e., being named the secretary-general of the ITIQA in 1994, director of Hong Kong China Chan 
An International Taiji Quan Society for 1998-2000, vice president of the China Chang An International Tai 
Chi Association in 2000, associate director of Shaanxi Chinese Tai Chi Tui Shou Dao Center in 2000, vice 
president of the ITIQA in 2001, and vice president of the Wu Dang Zhao Bao Tai Chi Research Institute in 
2002. The petitioner also submitted evidence that she was named a consultant or instructor for several private 
martial arts studios. However, the petitioner presented no evidence regarding any of the studios' or 
organizations' backgrounds, standing in the community or world, or any other aspect of their reputations except 
for the USA Tai Chi Kung Fu Club. The information submitted concerning the USA Tai Chi Kung Fu Club 
contains general background information, but includes no information to indicate that it enjoys a distinguished 
reputation. 
In addition, the petitioner failed to introduce evidence that she performed in a leading or critical role for any of 
these organizations. The petitioner relies upon the job titles as evidence that she performed in a leading or 
critical role, but submitted no evidence regarding what requirements were imposd by these positions. The 
petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that she was responsible for any of the organizations' success 
or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Without evidence that she performed a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished 
reputation, the petitioner has failed to show eligibility under this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of her field. The evidence in this case 
indicates that the petitioner achieved success as a competitor in the late 1980's and early 1990's, however, the 
record does not establish that the petitioner sustained her past acclaim as a martial arts practitioner in the decade 
following her last documented award and preceding the filing of this petition. The record also fails to establish 
that, at the time of filing, the petitioner sustained her former acclaim as a practitioner through her subsequent 
work as a coach. She is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraor- ability pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), and her petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. This decision is rendered without prejudice to the filing of a new petition with the requisite 
supporting documents under section 203(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.