dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

g&&$fyllg @ deleted ta* 
~e ci -:mint& 
b& ot psmal privacy 
PUBLIC COW 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 3 2007 
SRC 06 18 1 53340 
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 hrther inquiry must be made to that office. 
3w- 
2 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 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. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established that she qualifies for classification as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner has risen to the vay top of her field of endeavor. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall f~st 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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. 3 204.5(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. 3 204.5(h)(3). 
The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on May 22, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability in 
the martial arts. 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 qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
Page 3 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted photocopies of the following: 
1. Certificate of Appreciation from Asian Spectrum, Inc. acknowledging the petitioner's martial arts 
performance for a television show on June 7,2005 
2. Award Certificate for first place in Women's Nanquan at the National Wushu Competition 
tournament in September 1999 
3. A March 13,2002 certificate stating that the petitioner placed first in the Nanquan competition at 
the National Wushu Match and was awarded "the title of Wushu master star athlete" 
4. Certificate from the "Zhujian Film Manufacturring] Company" stating that the petitioner took 
part in a battery advertisement on September 8, 2000 which "acquired the Golden Prize of 
Advertisement" in Guangdong Province 
5. Achievement Certificate stating that the petitioner won first place in Women's Nanquan at the 
Wushu Match of the Sixth University Students' Sport Meet in September 2000 
6. Award Certificate stating that the petitioner placed first in Women's Nanquan at the National 
Adult Wushu Tournament in December 1999 
7. Certificate issued by the Guangdong Wushu Association on August 18, 1999 stating that the 
petitioner was awarded first place at the "Wushu Match of Guangdong" 
8. First place diploma for Women's Nanquan at the 1998 "Macau Asia Junior Wushu Invitation 
Tournament" 
9. First Place diploma for Women Junior Wushu Invitation 
Tournament" 
10. A December 17, 1998 certificate issued by the 
 etic Committee stating 
that the petitioner placed first in the Women's 
 at the Wushu Match of 
Guangdong Province and was awarded the title of "first class athlete" 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to CIS shall be 
accompanied by a hll 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. The translations accompanying the petitioner's award certificates were not certified as required by 
the regulation. Further, the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically 
requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is 
her burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, the petitioner has not submitted evidence 
showing that her awards had a significant level of recognition beyond the presenting organizations. 
Page 4 
In regard to item 1, there is no evidence that this certificate is a nationally or internationally recognized award 
for excellence in the petitioner's field, rather than simply an acknowledgment of her participation in the show. 
Nor is there evidence showing that items 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 commanded national or international recognition 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. The record contains no evidence establishing the 
significance and magnitude of these Wushu competitions. National competitions typically issue event 
programs listing the order of events and the names of the participating contestants. At a competition's 
conclusion, results are usually provided indicating how each participant performed in relation to the other 
competitors in his or her events. The petitioner, however, has provided no evidence of the official 
comprehensive results for the competitions in which she received awards. Nor is there evidence showing that 
the recipients of these award certificates were announced in major media or in some other manner consistent 
with national or international acclaim. Regarding items 4,7, and 10, there is no supporting evidence showing 
that these awards reflect national or international recognition rather than provincial recognition. Further, the 
awards numbered 2 through 10 were received more than four years before this petition was filed and therefore 
they are not an indication that the petitioner's national or international acclaim in the martial arts has been 
sustained. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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 orfields. 
The petitioner submitted a photocopy of her "Work Certificate" issued by the Guangdong Physical Athletic 
Committee on December 29,2004 and a March 10,2004 "Letter of Appointment" from the Guangdong Wushu 
Association. The petitioner also submitted a photocopy of her "Wushu Dan Certificate" fiom the Chinese Wushu 
Association reflecting a sixth level The English language translations accompanying these documents were 
not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3). Further, while the petitioner has "passed 
the Wushu and achieved a sixth level there is no evidence that the Chinese Wushu 
Association requires a sixth level 
 to become a member.' Nor is there evidence identifying the specific 
requirements that must be satisfied to achieve this ranking. The record includes no evidence (such as 
membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that the preceding organizations require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's or an allied field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she 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 classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
1 
 There is no evidence that first, second, third, fourth, and fifth level Dans are excluded fiom membership in 
the Chinese Wushu Association. 
Page 5 
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 fi-om a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualifL as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.2 
The petitioner submitted an article fi-om Chinese Overseas News entitled ' National 
Representative [the petitioner] ~ound is Favored by Americans." The date and author of this 
material were not identified as required by this regulatory criterion. Further, the English language translation 
accompanying this article was not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). Nor is there 
evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that Chinese Overseas News qualifies as a professional or major 
trade publication or other form of major media. Finally, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
published material about the petitioner in more than one publication. A single article about the petitioner does not 
meet this requirement and is not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she 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 speciJication for which classifwation 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, 
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 defintion 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). For example, judging a 
national competition for top athletes is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition for novices. 
The petitioner submitted a "Certificate of Referee" issued by the Guangdong Province Athletic Bureau on March 
5,2003 stating that she was named "First class referee of PRC [People's Republic of China] in Wushu program" 
and a January 18, 2004 "Letter of Appointment" stating that she was "appointed to be a General Referee in 
Wushu Team of Guangdong Wushu Association." The petitioner also submitted a document entitled 
"Competition Supervision Committee" identiflmg the petitioner as a "chief ~eferee."~ The source of the latter 
document has not been identified. The record also lacks official competition rules or other evidence showing that 
serving as a referee is tantamount to participation as a judge. The petitioner also submitted a July 2004 "Letter of 
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. 
This document identifies the petitioner as a "referee" and other individuals as "judges." 
Invitation" requesting the petitioner's services at the "national youth team wushu tournament" in Indonesia in 
2004 and a September 2003 letter £rom the Organizing Committee of the Hong Kong International Wushu 
Festival requesting the petitioner's services at the festival in February 2004. An invitation to judge is not 
evidence of "participation" as a judge. For example, there is no evidence of the petitioner's actual 
participation (such as judging slips, a judge's identification badge, or an event program identifling her as a 
judge) at the Hong Kong International Wushu Festival or any other competition. Further, the English language 
translations accompanying the preceding documents were not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). 
stating that the petitioner "was . . . invited to judge the martial arts competition at 
Arnold Fitness Expo 2005 in Ohio," but there is no evidence of the petitioner's actual 
In this case, there is no evidence of the petitioner's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others. The record lacks evidence showing the names of the individuals evaluated by the 
petitioner, their level of expertise, the specific competitive categories she judged, or any other documentation 
of her assessments. The benefit sought in the present matter is not the type for which documentation is typically 
unavailable and the statute specifically requires "extensive documentation" to establish eligibility. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i). Further, the commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing this statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of 
extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required'' for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Without 
substantive evidence of the petitioner's actual participation as a judge of the work of others in her or an allied 
field that is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim, we cannot conclude that she meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijicance in the$eld. 
In an April 25, 2006 letter accompanying the petition, counsel argues that the article in Chinese Overseas 
News meets this criterion. As discussed previously, the English language translation accompanying this article 
was not certified as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(b)(3). Nevertheless, nothing in this article 
indicates that the petitioner has made original artistic or athletic-related contributions of major significance. 
Further, this "published material" has already been addressed under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because 
separate criteria exist for published material and original contributions of major significance, CIS clearly does 
not view these criteria as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a 
finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be 
meaningless. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing her ranking, employment, training, and awards, 
but these letters fail to specify her original contributions of major significance in the martial arts. The record 
does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on others in her field nationally or internationally, nor 
Page 7 
does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of her work. In general, the opinions of experts in 
the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. 
CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of 
letters fiom experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content 
of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
For example, vague statements attesting to an alien's standing and skill are less persuasive than specific examples 
of achievements. Similarly, experts who were previously aware of the alien's accomplishments through her 
reputation are more persuasive than experts who were previously unaware of the alien and are providing an 
opinion based on a review of the alien's resume as provided by the alien. 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 
practitioner who has sustained national or international acclaim. In this case, the petitioner has not 
established that she has made original contributions of major significance to her field in a manner consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thej?eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted what is alleged to be an article she authored in Chinese Acrobatics and Martial Arts 
entitled "Function of Sound and Exhalation of Southern Boxing: A Coach's Experience." The English 
language translation accompanying this article was not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that the preceding 
publication qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other form of major media. Finally, the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "authorship of scholarly articles." A single article authored by 
the petitioner does not meet this requirement and is not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or 
that she meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, there is no evidence of 
achievements or recognition (during the years immediately preceding the filing of the petition) showing that 
the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim in the martial arts in recent years. 
In the April 25, 2006 letter accompanying the petition, counsel states that the petitioner "is currently working 
in the United States in 0-1 status as an entertainer." Documentation in the record indicates that the alien was 
the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed in her behalf in 2005. Although the 
words "extraordinary ability'' are used in the Act for classification of artists under both the nonimmigrant 0-1 and 
the first preference employment-based immigrant categories, the statute and regulations define the term 
differently for each classification. Section 101(a)(46) of the Act states, "The term 'extraordinary ability' means, 
Page 8 
for purposes of section 101(a)(15)(0)(i), in the case of the arts, distinction." The 0-1 regulation reiterates that 
"[elxtraordinary ability in the field of arts means distinction." 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(3)(ii). "Distinction" is a lower 
standard than that required for the immigrant classification, which defines 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 evidentiary criteria for these two classifications also differ in several 
respects, for example, nominations for awards or prizes are acceptable evidence of 0-1 eligibility, 8 C.F.R. 
4 214.2(3)(iv)(A), but the immigrant classification requires actual receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized awards or prizes. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(i). Given the clear statutory and regulatory distinction 
between these two classifications, the petitioner's prior receipt of 0-1 nonimmigrant classification is not evidence 
of her eligibility for immigrant classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
While Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed 
on behalf of the beneficiary, that prior approval does not preclude CIS fi-om denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. In publishing the proposed rule, legacy INS specifically 
distinguished the 0-1 nonimmigrant category fi-om the high standard set for the immigrant visa extraordmry 
ability category. See 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant 
petitions are denied after CIS 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. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because CIS spends less time reviewing I- 
129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimrnigrant petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas AM Univ. v. 
Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude 
CIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of a beneficiary'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 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS 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.), aj'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), 
cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 5 1 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her 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. 
Page 9 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.