dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18356046 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP . 13, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a martial arts athlete , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education , business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor ." 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2) . The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First , a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is a martial arts athlete who has competed in the karate discipline, 
including ine=]and the United States. 1 He indicates his intention to continue competing as a karate 
athlete in the United States. His most recent entry was in 2018 as a F-1 nonimmigrant student, and he is 
pursuing a doctorate at the University ofl I where he plans to continue his karate training. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
and judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the 
following evidentiary criteria: membership in associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and leading 
or critical role for organizations or establishments at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 2 After reviewing all 
the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he satisfies at least three 
criteria, as required. 
1 The record indicates that the! !Karate FederationLJ) is the national governing body of the spolt inD the USA 
National Karate-do Federation (USANKF) is the national governing body of the spolt in the United States, and the World 
Karate Federation is the international governing body. 
2 We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner claimed, but did not establish, that he meets the criterion related 
to published material in certain media. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the 
Director's finding that he does not meet this criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, we consider this issue to 
be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. AttJJ Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned 
as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director previously determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy this 
criterion. We disagree and withdraw the Director's findings on this criterion. The record reflects that 
the Petitioner has received numerous awards in the field of karate. For example, it establishes that in 
the I I category he received first place at the 20191 I Texas State 
Karate Championship and National Qualifier l 12019), in the I I Male Advanced I I 
Ocatego he received second place at the 20191 ~ National Karate Championships and 
Team Trials 2019), and in Mal el I Division he received second place at the 2019 
.__ __ ~ __ __._,Karate Championship ~ 12019). It further shows that the International 
Karatedo~--~Association awarded him first lace in the Junior Male I lcategory and 
second place in the Junior Male .__ _______ _,weight category, respectively, at thel I 
I !World Championships '----r---~ 2009). 
As it relates to showing that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence 
in his field, the Petitioner provides copies of awards certificates, photographs of medals, screenshots 
from the websites of the event organizers, and a translated article from I I magazine 
confirming his results in competitions. 3 For example, the article from I , I reports that 
the I [(Karate) Team in the.___ _____ ___. Championship held in[ I 
managed to be the champion of this round of games winning 17 gold medals." The article lists the 
Petitioner among the names of 14 medalists on the team, and notes that he and two others won a gold 
medal in the Youth! I division at the competition. This limited evidence of the award's media 
coverage is insufficient to establish the level of national or international recognition associated with 
the awards he received at the ~--------~ World Championships. While the above 
materials, and the others in the record, confirm the Petitioner's receipt of these awards, they do not 
demonstrate the national or international significance of the awards won. 4 The record lacks other 
evidence establishing that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in 
the field of martial arts, as required. The Petitioner, therefore, has not submitted documentation 
sufficient to establish his eligibility for this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner maintains his eligibilit)'. for this criterion through his position as a former member of 
the~------~Team ofthel 1. 5 In order to satisfy 
3 While we only discuss a sampling of the documents here, we have reviewed the record in its entirety. 
4 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing 
guidance on the review of evidence submitted to satisfy the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)) (noting 
relevant considerations in determining if the award or prize meets this criterion, among others, are its national or 
international significance in the
1
field.) I 
5 The evidence reflects that the is a member of fhe Tntematjona) ~aratedo I I Association based in I I 
Japan, which represents the style of karate practiced by_ _ I and holds world championship 
competitions every four years. 
3 
this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on being judged 
by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for 
which classification is sought. In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not 
submit evidence sufficient to establish that the I I requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
On appeal, the Petitioner has not submitted any new evidence related to his membership, asserting that 
the documentation demonstrates his eligibility under this criterion. The Petitioner refers to several of 
our non-precedent decisions concerning athletes who petitioned under this classification. These 
decisions were not published as precedents and therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future 
adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the 
specific facts of the individual case and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Nevertheless, we have reviewed 
the decisions although we will not discuss each one separately. The Petitioner emphasizes that the 
referenced non-precedent decisions demonstrate that we have previously "held that selection to and 
participation on a national team satisfies the membership requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)." 
Similarly, he urges that Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp. 2d 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), which involved 
a member of thd I Table Tennis Team who competed at the 2008 Olympic Games, supports his 
contention that "letters descriptive of a highly selective process to achieve membership on an I I 
national team are an acceptable form of evidence to satisfy the membership criterion." 
We acknowledge that membership on a national team may, depending on the evidence presented in 
an individual case, be sufficient to satisfy this criterion. While an athletic team is not, strictly speaking, 
an "association," it is nonetheless equally true that an athlete can earn a place on a major national or 
an Olympic team only through rigorous competition which separates the very best from the great 
majority of participants in a given sport. Therefore, an athlete's membership on an Olympic team or 
a major national team may serve to meet this criterion as such teams are limited in the number of 
members and have a rigorous selection process. 6 It is the Petitioner's burden, however, to demonstrate 
that he meets every element of a given criterion. We will not assume that every "national team" is 
sufficiently exclusive and requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their fields or disciplines. Upon review of the letters submitted, we 
conclude that they do not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion, as they contain 
inconsistent and insufficient information regarding the I I Team membership 
requirements and selection processes. 
The Petitioner submitted several letters from'-----.=========-==;--' president of th~ J
1 who states that the Petitioner was a member of the Team "at thd.....,.....,=-~~,......,.J 
llw orld Championship (2009 and 2013 I ~ where he 
~ Gold r I and Silver medal " In an additional letter 
dated June 202o] 0 ldescribes the selection process for the~-------~ Team as 
follows: 
6 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual. supra, at F.2 appendix (stating that election to a national all-star or Olympic team might 
serve as comparable evidence for evidence of membership in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)). 
4 
National team selectees are initially required to rank first or second at the provincial 
championships, which qualifies them for the c=Jnational championships. At the 
nationals (every year around mid-September), national team [selectees] ... were again 
required to finish first or second to establish eligibility for the national team selection 
competition, the premier national competition forl I 
The national team selection competition is presided by thel l Board of Directors 
and President who constitute the Selection Committee for the national team. 
This committee is comprised of the top karate officials and experts in including 
myself .... 
In assessing the final Ranking of these competitors, the selection committee evaluates 
national team prospects based upon their technical performance (stances, transitional 
movements, timing/synchronization, focus, conformance) and athletic performance 
( strength, speed, balance). Upon completion of the national team selection 
competition, the athletes with the top-2 scores overall are selected to representD on 
the world stage at competitions, which include thel !World Championships . 
.__ ___ __.~ndicates the forgoing description constitutes thel I "formal national-team selection 
process despite the unavailability of formal records and/or by-laws confirming the same." 
The Petitioner provided a farther letter froml I and letters from other I I board members 
I l,...__ _______ _,, and~I ----~I all dated June 2020, which describe 
"the national-team selection process" as follows: 
Competitions for our athletes begin at the provincial level where gold and silver medal 
winners become eligible for our national championships . . . Judges at the national 
competition evaluate competitors based upon the technical and athlete rules/by-laws of 
thel I Therefore, [the Petitioner] ... was 
mandated by our national federation to follow this highly selective evaluation rubric 
and was deemed eligible to represent thel lby the top experts of 
our sport . 
. . . [t]he information herein is a true and accurate statement of thel I national team 
selection process despite no official recordkeeping or by-laws documenting same. 
In comparing the letters froml 11 11 l and one of the letters fromD 
~-~~hey contain large portions of identical or virtually identical language consistent with a common 
source. If testimonial material lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
Petitioner to famish corroborative items. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). In addition, 
the letters submitted contain inconsistences related to the membership criteria and selection process 
for thd ITeam. For example, one o~ l's letters describes the selection 
criteria as involving a three-tier process in which a candidate must achieve first or second place 
finishes in provincial-level competitions and the national competition, as well as a top-two final 
ranking in athletic and technical performance at the national team selection competition judged by the 
5 
Selection Committee jr thel 11 However, another ofl Is letters and those of □ 
I I, I _ and I I provide alternate criteria for national-team membership, 
describing a two-step selection process in which gold and silver medal winners at the provincial level 
become eligible for the national championship in which judges "evaluate competitors based upon the 
technical and athlete rules/by-laws ofthel I' The Petitioner 
must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, none of the above letters identify the Petitioner's competitive results in the provincial, 
national, or national team selection competition which resulted in the Petitioner's inclusion on the 
national team in 2009 and 2013, or evidence establishing that his placings at those events qualify as 
"outstanding achievements" as required by the plain language of this criterion. Moreover, since the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence of when he became a member of the national team, we have no 
basis to evaluate whether he met the membership requirements stated in the above letters. 
We note that the Director's determination that the letters submitted "do not in any way describe the 
selection process for membership" on the claimed national team was incorrect, given the contents of the 
letters from] 11 = ll l andl I, quoted above, and their position 
within thel I. However, the Petitioner relies solely on the above-referenced letters in support of 
this criterion; the authors of the letters do not indicate where the organization's official membership 
requirements and review processes can be found, and there is no supporting independent 
documentation that describes these requirements. As he has not submitted verifiable and consistent 
evidence with respect to the.__ _______ __. Team membership requirements or selection 
processes, the Petitioner has not established that this claimed national team requires outstanding 
achievement of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. For the above 
reasons, the Petitioner has not shown 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 allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director previously determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy this 
criterion. We disagree and withdraw the Director's findings on this criterion. Here the Petitioner 
asserts eligibility through his participation as "a Judge and Referee" at the 2019 I l 
Karate Championship, the 20191 INational Karate Championships and Team Trials, and 
the 20191 I Texas State Karate Championship and National Qualifier. 
The Petitioner provided several letters in support of this criterion. A letter dated August 2019 from 
I I of the USANKF states that the Petitioner "has been officiating at thel I 
National Championships as well as regional tournaments in 2019" and that he is "a great addition to 
thd I referee corps." A letter from.__ _____ ~~ President of the I I 
.__ ______ confirms that the Petitioner "participated as an athlete and as a Referee at 2019 
Texas State Championship & National Qualifier held in May 2019." The Petitioner also provided a 
7 We note that the record lacks evidence establishing that the Selection Committee for thee=] national team is comprised 
of nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field, as required by this criterion. 
6 
letter of appreciation dated October 2019 from I I tournament director for the 2019 
I I Karate Championship, thanking him for "an exemplary job officiating during most 
of the day." 
Further, the record contains several certificates from USANKF relating to the Petitioner's officiating 
qualifications. A certificate dated March 2019 identifies the Petitioner as a "Regional Kumite Judge­
B" and states that he has satisfied "the requirements for a license within the [USANKF]." A certificate 
dated May 2019 indicates he is a "Kumite Regional Judge A" and confirms he has fulfilled the 
"national requirements of th~I IReferee Committee," apparently during the aforementioned 
20191 I Texas State Karate Championship and National Qualifier. 
Further, two certificates dated July 2019 identify the Petitioner as a "Regional Kata Judge C" and a 
"National Kumite Referee D," respectively, and confirm his fulfillment of the "National Requirements 
of the [USANKF] Referee Committee," apparently during the aforementioned 20191 I 
National Karate Championships and Team Trials. Moreover, several photographs appear to show the 
Petitioner officiating at 20191 IN ational Karate Championships and Team Trials and posing 
with other officials at the 201 g I Karate Championship. 
The USANKF certificates establish the Petitioner's qualifications as a judge and referee. The 
statements otl b11dl I confirm that the Petitioner has been officiating at the D 
I I National Championships as well as regional tournaments in 2019. I ~ndicates 
that the Petitioner participated as a referee at 2019 Texas State Championship & National Qualifier. 
However, the Petitioner does not provide a description of his duties at any of the above competitions 
to demonstrate whether they involve evaluating or judging the work or skills of competitors as opposed 
to enforcing the rules of a match and ensuring sportsmanlike competition. Further, the record lacks 
other evidence, such as the Petitioner's credentials for the events at which he officiated to identify his 
role and official competition rules for the events, showing that the role in which he served equates to 
participating as a "judge" of the work of others. Without farther documentation, such as evidence that 
he awarded points or exercised his judgment in choosing the ultimate winner at these events, the 
evidence regarding serving as an "official" or a "referee" at martial arts events is insufficient to meet 
this criterion. 
As discussed above, we find that the Petitioner does not meet the three criteria relating to prizes or 
awards, membership, and judging. Although the Petitioner also claims to satisfy an additional 
criterion related to leading or critical role on appeal, we need not reach this issue. We reserve it as he 
cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally 
required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
7 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8