dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-L-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 1, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a martial arts instructor, seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in 
athletics. 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 
not provided documentation satisfying the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 
204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least 
three of the ten regulatory criteria. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish that 
he would continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
In his appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in finding he did not meet the initial evidence 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) . The Petitioner further states that the evidence 
demonstrates his standing as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of A-L-S-
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as qualifying awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that the Petitioner has been a competitive athlete, instructor, referee, and judge in 
several martial arts forms including kung fo, wushu, karate, and tai chi. He seeks to continue his work 
as a martial arts instructor in the United States. 
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). 1 In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any 
of the ten criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). For the reasons discussed below, we find that he has not satisfied the 
initial evidentiary requirements. 
1 We note that the Petitioner states on appeal that his gold medal at the 2017~Martial Artsl !Championship 
is "comparable to a Nobel prize or other internationally recognized award," but he does not specifically claim that it 
satisfies the one-time achievement criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(3). Rather, the Petitioner submitted the award as 
evidence of his eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). We briefly note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(4) does 
not allow for submission of "comparable evidence" relating to the one-time achievement of a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor does the record demonstrate that the noted award qualifies as such an achievement. 
2 
Matter of A-L-S-
Documentation of the individual'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 acknowledged the evidence of the Petitioner's awards received as a competitive martial 
arts athlete, but declined to consider these since the Petitioner is petitioning as a martial arts instructor. 
We disagree with the Director's analysis and will consider this evidence. 2 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion because he received a gold medal at the 2017 D I l Martial Arts Championship held in I 13 The record includes what appears to be an 
official event photograph of the Petitioner with a medal, on which he is identified as the 'I I 
c=JGold Medalist." Based on the limited information provided by this document, this event was 
sponsored by~---------------~~ The record does not contain any other 
evidence related to this event or to the Petitioner's performance in the event, such as official results, a 
list of competitors, the event's entrance requirements or rules, or media coverage of the event. 
The language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. The record is insufficient to confirm that the Petitioner's win 
at the 20171 I event constitutes his receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award for excellence in the field. 
The Petitioner submitted testimonial evidence that referenced his gold medal at thi.,....,.................. This 
evidence included a letter from his current employer J I Law College in which 
notes that his award is "a noteworthy and exemplary achievement as he is the first.__ _____ ____. 
to bag this Gold Medal in the history of I I Martial Arts Championship." The Petitioner also 
submitted a letter from the Rotary Club of I l where he teaches tai chi on a voluntary basis. 
The club's secretary references the 201 7 gold medal and notes that the Petitioner "is the first person 
from our country to get this top award." However, these statements from individuals who know the 
Petitioner personally but have not claimed or established expertise in martial arts are insufficient to 
establish that he won a nationally or internationally recognized award. 
2 We note that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) provides: 
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international acclaim as an athlete and 
has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching/managing at a national level, adjudicators 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 beneficiary's area of expertise. 
AFM chapter 22.22( i)( I)( C) ( emphasis in original). 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation of two other awards that he received as a competitive athlete but he has neither 
claimed nor provided evidence that these are lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the 
field. One is a "Certificate of Merit Pa11icipation" indicating tha~ awarded first place in the "Kata" category at the 
199 ,.__ _______ _. Karate Championship held at theL__JAcademy of Martial Arts at the age of 13. The 
other is a certificate indicating his first place medal in the I I at The ~-------....,,...... 
Taekwondo Championships held inl I in 2004. Neither award was accompanied by any additional 
evidence that would establish that they are nationally or internationally recognized awards. 
3 
Matter of A-L-S-
For example, he has not shown that his win attracted the level of media attention that might indicate 
the award's national or international recognition. Moreover, he has not submitted information about 
the individuals who participated in the event, including their caliber and skill level, which might reveal 
the prestige and recognition of the competition. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, 
supra, 6 (providing that for this criterion we should consider "[t]he number of awardees or prize 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors" and that "an award limited to competitors from a 
single institution ... may have little national or international significance"). 
The Petitioner also submitted two letters, one from thel I Full Contact Association, 
and one from thd IN ational Sports Council, which refer to the Petitioner's receipt of a gold medal 
in thq I Championship held inl 12017. However, the only corroborating 
evidence provided is an "International Certificate" issued to him for participation in this event as a 
referee. A letter from the event sponsor, thel ~, confirms that 
the Petitioner was invited to serve as a judge at the event and to perform a demonstration for the closing 
ceremony. Thel Is statement indicates he was awarded a gold medal "as a [t]oken of 
[a]ppreciation." Therefore, evidence does not establish that the Petitioner earned a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence at this event. 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner initially submitted certificates of his qualifications issued by the 
World United Martial Arts Federation (WUMA). These certificates indicate that he was recognized 
as a Class A WUMA International Referee, a 3rd degree black sash in kung fu, and a 2nd degree black 
belt as a wushu instructor. These certificates do not equate to nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field. The certificates establish that the Petitioner earned these 
ranks based on his successful completion of a required skills test or examination, but he has not 
established that these rank certificates constitute either prizes or awards, nor has he submitted 
documentation, such as media reports, demonstrating that his rankings have received national or 
international recognition. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted documentation that satisfies 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 Director found that the Petitioner did not submit evidence that satisfies this criterion. On appeal, 
the Petitioner gat he submitted evidence that he is the General Secretary of the WUMA Kung 
Fu Associatio the Vice President of thd , lw orld Martial Arts Association; an honorary 
member of the Goju-Kai Karate Association; and a member of the I 1 I Kyokushin 
Karate Association. 4 The Petitioner asserts that this evidence was not properly evaluated. In order to 
4 The submitted documentation indicates that the Petitioner was approved as a "Lifelong Member" in the~I ---~ 
Kyokushkin Karate Association in November 2018, ten months after he filed this petition. Therefore, this evidence cannot 
establish his eligibility at the time of filing and we will not further address it. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). For the same, 
reason, we will not consider evidence indicating that the Petitioner was appointed as an honorary member of the World 
Martial Arts Committee (WMAC) in October 2018. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
4 
Matter of A-L-S-
satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that he is a member of an assocrnt10n, and 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. 5 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from I I Administrative Officer of the Association Co­
ordination Section of thel , INational Sports Coun~il. He confirms that the Petitioner was formerly 
the "Founder General Secretary" of the I IWUMA King Fu Association and is currently a vice 
president of that association. I I mentions the Petitioner's experience as an athlete, referee, 
and judge at various martial arts competitions, and states that he is "a valued extraordinary player, 
trainer, Judge and official." However, while the record confirms the Petitioner's roles as both general 
secretary and, later, vice president of the I I WUMA Kung Fu Association, neither this letter nor 
the other evidence in the record mentions the membership requirements for this association to show 
that it requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
The Petitioner states that a "letter dated 11/06/2018 from the National Sports Council" indicates that 
he is "Vice President ofthel !World Martial Arts Association." However, the evidence does not 
establish that the I I WUMA Kung Fu Association" and the I !World Martial Arts 
Association" are two different associations. In fact the referenced letter states that the Petitioner was 
elected vice president ofl IWUMA Kung-Fu Association as of March 2018. We note that the 
Petitioner submitted little other information about the association. The record reflects that WUMA 
Kung Fu Associatiotj lwas designated the National Martial Arts Committee (NMAC) , I 
by the World Martial Arts Committee (WMAC) in January 2017, but without evidence of the 
association's membership requirements and selection criteria, we cannot determine that the 
Petitioner's officer roles with this association meet the requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner provided a letter from the Secretary General ofD Goju-kai Karate-do Association 
along with a "Certificate of Honorary Member" issued by this organization. The letter states that the 
Petitioner was recommended for honorary membership by the "National Specialist Selection 
Committee of Sports" with a full quorum of three members, and approved by the Central Executive 
Committee. The letter mentions the Petitioner's "outstanding success and extraordinary achievement 
in the field of Martial Arts." However, the Petitioner provided insufficient independent evidence of 
the membership requirements for this association and the record does not establish that membership 
qualifications are judged by recognized national or international experts. 
For these reasons the Petitioner has not shown 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 classification is sought. 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of lzummi, 22 T&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision, citing 
Matter of Bardouille, 18 l&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), further provides that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into 
being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
5 
Matter of A-L-S-
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director did not directly address the published materials in his decision, although the Petitioner 
initially claimed he was submitting evidence to meet this criterion. The Director, citing to Matter of 
Nevarez, 15 I&N Dec. 550 (BIA 1976), did not consider the evidence because the submitted certificate 
of translation did not accompany the translated documents or certify the translations as complete. 
We have reviewed the published materials and note that even if the Director had found that the 
submitted certificate of translation was sufficient, the submitted evidence would not meet this 
criterion. The Petitioner submitted 24 articles published inl I newspapers Rajdhani, Annapurna, 
Himalaya Times, Gorkhapatra, Naya Patrika, Nepal Samarchar Patra, and Commander Post. While 
most of the articles briefly mention the Petitioner, none of them are about him. For example, many of 
the articles are identical in content and note that the Petitioner participated alongside 21 others in a 
two day seminar for kung fu instructors which was organized b~ I WUMA Kung Fu Association. 
Other articles note the achievements of students at the academy where the Petitioner works as an 
instructor and note that he served as the team trainer, while others reported that the I IWUMA 
Kung Fu Association traveled to Bangkok for the First World Martial Arts Competition with the 
Petitioner as their team leader. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not fulfill this regulatory 
criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). We also note that none 
of the submitted articles identify the author of the material, as required by the regulations. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide documentation demonstrating that any of these newspapers 
are considered professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
For these reasons the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies 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 spec[fication for which class[fication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, noting that the Petitioner 
submitted evidence that identified him as a "referee" and testimonial evidence regarding his 
performance as a judge that was not corroborated by other evidence in the record. We disagree and 
find that the record supports the Petitioner's claim that he meets this criterion. 
The evidence confirms the Petitioner's participation as a judge at the aforementioned I I Open 
Championship where, according to the I lpresident, he "served as a judge for several fights that 
were being held." The Petitioner also submitted an invitation letter, a certificate, and a letter from the 
WMAC confirming his role as a "Judge in forms and kickboxing categories" at the 20161 I Martial 
Arts I lheld inl l The corroborated evidence of the Petitioner's participation as a judge 
of the work of others was not limited to these two events. 
Therefore, the evidence sufficiently establishes that the Petitioner has participated as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
6 
Matter of A-L-S-
C. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner is not eligible because he 
has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that 
meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we need not folly 
address the totality of the materials in a final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, and conclude that it does 
not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the 
classification sought. 6 
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 athletic accomplishments 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 section 
203(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)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) 
of the Act, we need not determine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability" under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) and will not address the Director's separate finding with respect 
to that issue. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In 
visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-L-S-, ID# 5107649 (AAO Oct. 1, 2019) 
6 This review included consideration of testimonial evidence that was not claimed to satisfy any particular regulatory 
criterion, such as reference letters from the Petitioner's current and former students and references from professional 
associates familiar with the Petitioner's skills as a martial artist. 
7