dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clec;al;/ unwarranted 
invasion of per& privacj 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
LIN 08 050 50745 
 Date: DCT 1 9 2009 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 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. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
J. 
p Peny Rhew 
$chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify 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. fj 1153(b)(l)(A), as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary has earned the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found 
that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally 
recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
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. fj 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. fj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on December 3, 2007, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a martial arts instructor, coach, and competitor. The petitioner submitted a 
letter from - of the Traditional Karate Center in America (TKCA), stating: "At 
this time we are pursuing an 1-140 petition on behalf of [the beneficiary] so that he may utilize his 
extraordinary and outstanding skills and talents in the martial arts as a permanent, full-time coach 
and competitive athlete on behalf of TKCA." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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 the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the beneficiary 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 
under 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the beneficiary's "Curriculum vitae" listing his "Awards and 
accomplishments" as follows: 
Dominican Republic National Tournament Taekwon-Do ITF [International 
Taekwondo ~ederation],~ 1" place for lightweight division in fighting (December); 
Dominican Republic Spanish Tournament-American and ITF, lSt place in form, lst 
place for lightweight division in fighting (August); 
1 " place in breaking[,] 1 st place in form in Dominican Republic (January); 
Award for the Dominican Republic Instructor of the year (October); 
National Tournament Taekwon-Do Oh Do Kwan Dominican Republic lS' place 
fighting division (August); 
North Regional Champion in forms (September); 
Instructor of the year (December); 
National Tournament ITF lSt place in forms, Dominican Republic (December); 
Instructor of the year Dominican Republic (December); 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
For clarification, the International Taekwondo Federation is a separate entity from the World Taekwondo Federation, 
the official governing body for the sport of taekwondo as recognized by the International Olympic Committee. See 
http://www.wtf.org/wtf englsitelabout wtf/intro.html, accessed on August 11,2009, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
200 1 - Haiti Championship 1 place in fighting, 1 place breaking and 1 place team; 
2002- Instructor of the year in Dominican Republic; 
2002- Guatemala Championship 1" place in lightweight fighting, 1" place in breaking and 
1'' place in team; 
2003- lSt place for lightweight divisions in fighting, 2nd place in my division in breaking. 
Championship for lightweight division fighting in Cuba; 
2004- 1'' place in Pan-American in lightweight fighting and 2nd place in breaking in the Pan- 
American ITF of Argentina; 
2005- 4th place in fighting for the World Championship of the ITF in Australia of over 60 
countries; 
Awarded by the major of the City of Tamboril, Dominican Republic, for Best Athlete in 
2002,2003 and 2004; and 
Awarded by the International Institute of Taekwon-Do Oh Do Kwan for Best International 
Coach in 2004. 
The petitioner's initial submission included letters from the United States of America National 
Taekwon-Do ~ederation,~ Shuko-Kai International, the Southern Pacific Karate Association, and the 
Seiden-Kai Karate Center stating: 
[The beneficiary] was named Best Athlete in 2002, 2003, and 2004 by the city of Tamboril, 
Dominican Republic and named the Best International Coach in 2004 by the International 
Institute of Taekwon-Do Oh Do Kwan. Most recently he placed first in the lightweight 
fighting division and 2nd in breaking at the Pan American ITF of Argentina 2004 and placed 
fourth in fighting for the World Championship of the ITF in Australia in 2005 that included 
participation from over 60 countries. 
The beneficiary's awards from the city of Tamboril and the International Institute of Taekwon-Do 
Oh Do Kwan in the Dominican Republic constitute local or institutional recognition rather than 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. With regard to the beneficiary's first place 
in the lightweight fighting division and 2nd place in breaking at the Pan American ITF competition in 
Argentina (2004), there is no evidence from the competition's organizers indicating that the 
beneficiary received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in those categories. 
Although the record includes a November 2004 Certificate of Participation from the ITF's VII Pan 
American Games of Taekwon-Do in Mar del Plata, Argentina stating that the beneficiary 
participated as a competitor, the certificate does not identify him as an award recipient.4 With regard 
3 
 For clarification, the United States of America National Taekwon-Do Federation is a separate entity from USA 
Taekwondo, the official governing body for the sport of taekwondo in the United States as recognized by the U.S. 
Olympic Committee. See http:/lusa-taekwondo.us/, accessed on August 11, 2009, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
4 
 For clarification, the participation certificate submitted by the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary competed in the 
ITF's VII Pan American Games of Taekwon-Do in November 2004 rather than the multi-sport Pan American Games. 
The multi-sport Pan American Games are held every four years in the year preceding the Olympics (2003 and 2007 in 
this decade) and are conducted by the Pan American Sports Organization. See ht~://www.ol~pics.bd~asocourses.htm 
to the beneficiary's fourth place in fighting at the World Championship of the ITF in Australia in 
2005, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the his receipt of 
"nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards." In this instance, there is no evidence 
from the competition's organizers showing that the beneficiary received a prize or an award at this 
event for placing fourth. Further, the record does not include official results from the ITF World 
Championship showing where the beneficiary placed. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a June 2008 letter from 
the International Institute of Taekwon-Do Oh Do Kwan, Santiago, Dominican Republic, stating that 
the beneficiary "has been champion in his division of 54 Kg., more tha[n] 10 times, in the national 
and international competitions celebrated in the Dominican Republic, in skills and fight." A second 
June 2008 letter from the International Institute of Taekwon-Do Oh Do Kwan states that the 
beneficiary "was COACH & COMPETITOR for the winning team of the first place cup on the 
national championship 1998, in Santiago . . . and due to the great role in skills and fight, the team 
conquest that first place." 
With regard to the coaching and competitive awards claimed in the beneficiary's curriculum vitae 
and in the letters from the International Institute of Taekwon-Do Oh Do Kwan, United States of 
America National Taekwon-Do Federation, Shuko-Kai International, the Southern Pacific Karate 
Association, and the Seiden-Kai Karate Center for which there is no supporting evidence, simply 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972). A petition 
must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. !j 103.2(b)(l). The 
nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. !j 103.2(b)(2)(i). Without submitting evidence of the actual awards claimed above, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary received them. 
The petitioner also submitted the following: 
1. Photocopies of two medals from the 2007 ITF U.S. Junior and Senior World Qualifier, 
Pleasanton, California; 
2. Certificate stating that the beneficiary was awarded 2nd place in Sparring at the 2007 U.S. 
Junior and Senior World Qualifier in Pleasanton, California; 
3. Certificate from the International hstitute of Taekwon-Do Oh Do Kwan stating that the 
b6neficiary was granted a fourth degree black belt ranking "in accordance with the rules 
and regulations of the organization;" 
4. Several "Certificate(s) of Participation" for various training seminars and competitions; 
5. Photographs of various unspecified medals and trophies; 
6. Photographs of the beneficiary receiving or handling awards from the International 
Institute of Taekwon-Do Oh Do Kwan; 
and http://www.olvmpics.bm/panamaarnesbermuda teams.htm, accessed on August 11, 2009, copies incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 
Page 6 
7. "Skills Tournament IITO [International Institute of Taekwon-Do Oh Do Kwan] TKD 99" 
medal; 
8. Santiago's City Council 2002 medal; 
9. "Tamboril2003 IITO 6/8/03" medal; 
10. "XXIV Tournament IITO TKD 2003" medal; 
1 1. "1" Martial Arts Tournament of Tamboril2003" medal; 
12. "The Radiologist House 2nd Place Team Fights lSt Caribbean Encounter ITF 2004" medal; 
13. "Tae Kwon-Do Tournament San Rafael 2004" medal; 
14. "Almonte Fulgons" medal; 
15. "XI11 Tournament of Tae Kwon-Do, Tae Kwon-Do Eh Institute UTI, Dominican Republic 
2005" medal; 
16. "Tamboril's Firefighters 2nd Place ITF Tournament Tamboril2005" medal; 
17. Monumental Gym lSt ITF Cup Santiago 2005 Team Fight medal; 
18. July 2007 commendation to from "Hawks Tae Kwon- 
Do Academy;" 
19. Award from the IITO and the Merger of Tamboril School naming the beneficiary 
"Professor of the Year" for 1999; 
20. December 21, 2002 award from the IITO Tamboril Black Belt Team acknowledging the 
beneficiary for his hard work in the development of the institution; 
21. February 3, 2002 award from the IITO stating: "The merger of the schools Tamboril, 
Moca and Licey grant this award to [the beneficiary] for his great work in favor of this 
institution;" 
22. Award of Gratitude (2007) presented to the beneficiary by two of his students at IITO-ITF 
of San Diego; 
23. August 15, 2004 award presented to the beneficiary by the lSt Dan Black Belt Team of 
Tamboril for his "effort and dedication to Taekwon-Do;" and 
24. Undated and untitled newspaper article stating that the beneficiary was a member of the 
Dominican Team which won a silver medal at the "VII Pan-American Tournament of 
Discipline." 
With regard to items 1 through 24, there is no information about the preceding awards from the 
presenting organizations or supporting evidence demonstrating their national or international 
significance. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically 
requires that the beneficiary's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of 
endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no 
evidence showing that beneficiary's awards had a significant level of recognition beyond the 
presenting organizations. 
Regarding item 3, we note that the beneficiary's promotion in rank from his school, the IITO, was 
based on his successful completion of a taekwondo skills test. Such belt ranking promotions are 
inherent to the martial arts and they represent standardized progression to the next skill level. 
Further, there is no evidence showing that the ceremony in which the beneficiary received his 
promotion certificate commanded national or international recognition. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not established that the beneficiary's successful mastery of required skills and attainment of a 
Page 7 
higher belt ranking equates to his receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
In regard to items 3, 6 - 11, 13, and 16 - 23, these awards reflect local or institutional recognition 
rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. With regard to 
item 4, there is no evidence showing that these certificates are nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence, rather than simply an acknowledgment of the 
beneficiary's participation in various training seminars and competitions. Regarding item 18, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was the recipient of this award rather than- 
the owner of them 
In regard to items 1, 2, 5, 9 - 13, 15 - 17, and 24, the record does not include supporting evidence 
demonstrating the significance and magnitude of the preceding competitive events won by the 
beneficiary. For instance, there is no evidence of the official results from the preceding competitions 
indicating the number of entrants in the beneficiary's competitive category or weight division. 
Moreover, a competition may be open to athletes from throughout a particular country or countries, 
but this factor alone is not adequate to establish that an award or prize is "nationally or 
internationally recognized." The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition 
and achievement associated with the beneficiary's awards. With regard to awards won by the 
beneficiary in sporting events not demonstrated to have a level of stature comparable to those 
organized by recognized athletic organizations such as USA Taekwondo, the World Taekwondo 
Federation, or the Pan American Sports Organization, we cannot conclude that such awards indicate 
that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 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. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that an athlete who 
has had success in obscure competitions or tournament events with a limited pool of entrants should 
necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. To find 
otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) that this visa 
category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their 
field of endeavor." 
On appeal, counsel refers to the beneficiary's curriculum vitae as evidence that he served "as 
national trainer for the Northern Region of the Dominican Republic from 1990 to 2005, as head 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Crimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
instructor for the Dominican Republic National selection team to represent the Dominican Republic 
in international competition from 1996 to 2005, and as coach for the Dominican Republic Northern 
Region female team national and regional competitions from 2000 to 2005." The self-serving claims 
made in the beneficiary's curriculum vitae do not constitute evidence. Simply 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 158, 165. 
 Nevertheless, the 
beneficiary's claimed experience as trainer, head instructor, and coach is not tantamount to his 
receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 
Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by taekwondo competitors coached 
primarily by the beneficiary, however, can be considered for this criterion. As previously discussed, 
the beneficiar submitted a June 2008 letter from the IITO stating that the beneficiary "was - d for the winning team of the first place cup on the national championship 1998, in 
Santiago . . . and due to the great role in skills and fight, the team conquest that first place." Rather 
than submitting primary evidence of the preceding first place award from 1998, the petitioner instead 
submitted a letter issued a decade later by the beneficiary's taekwondo school attesting to the 
award's existence. As discussed, simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 158, 165. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the 
regulation. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, 
only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may 
the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be 
unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. The June 2008 letter is not sufficient to establish 
that the beneficiary or those under his tutelage received a prize or award at the national 
championship in 1998 or that their award had significant national recognition. On appeal, counsel 
states that the June 2008 letter should be considered as "expert testimony." The AAO may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony in visa proceedings. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, the 
AAO is not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988). We find that the claims made in the June 2008 IITO 
letter are unsupported by the initial evidence that is specifically required by this regulatory criterion, 
despite the director's request for evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Where the regulations require 
specific, objective evidence in support of a petition, the petitioner's burden of proof is not satisfied by 
submitting unsupported expert testimony. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(l). Accordingly, the AAO gives the 
submitted June 2008 letter less weight and finds its claims unpersuasive. 
 Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. at 791. 
Counsel further states: 
[The beneficiary] has coached students who have excelled in the sport, such as - 
who, along with beneficiary himself, was a member of the Team USA 2007 and won second 
place at the Jr. and Sr. World Qualifier held in Pleasanton, California, as well as received the 
Page 9 
opportunity to compete in the 2007 World Cup held in England. . . . Moreover, beneficiary 
- 
coaches his daughtdr recipient of second place in fighting and patterns at 
the Taekwon-do Team Training in San Francisco, CA, and his son - 
who received third place in fighting and patterns at the Taekwon-do Team Training in San 
Francisco, CA. Both participated in the prestigious 2007 Jr. and Sr. World Qualifier held in 
Pleasanton, CA (in the San Francisco area). 
The petitioner submitted a 62-person roster of Team USA 2007 artici ants for the ITF's 2007 
World Cup held in England as posted on the internet site of PP' the beneficiary's 
Certificate of Participation and his certificate for 2nd place in Sparring from the 2007 U.S. Junior and 
Senior World Qualifier in Pleasonton, a photograph of the beneficiary at the podium, and a 
photograph of his medal. The beneficiary's 2nd place in Sparring and medals from the 2007 U.S. 
Junior and Senior World Qualifier have already been addressed. The record does not include 
evidence showing the awards won by or the beneficiary's children. Without 
documentary evidence to support counsel's claims regarding their awards, the assertions of counsel 
will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 
(BIA 1980). Further, there is no documentation demonstrating that the beneficiary's students' 
received awards that were nationally or internationally recognized or information indicating the 
specific dates of their training under his tutelage. In this case, there is no evidence showing that top 
athletes coached primarily by the beneficiary have won nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards in taekwondo or karate competition. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzjication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
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, 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 submitted an October 22, 2007 certification from the IITO stating that the beneficiary 
is a member of the IITO and the ITF. The petitioner also submitted a certificate from the IITO 
stating that the beneficiary was granted a fourth degree black belt ranking "in accordance with the 
rules and regulations of the organization." The record, however, does not include evidence of the 
actual requirements for a fourth degree black belt ranking as specified in "the rules and regulations." 
Page 10 
Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that meeting the minimum time requirements for earning the next 
degree black belt ranking and passing a skills test constitute outstanding achievements. 
On appeal, counsel refers to the ITF's "Umpire Rules" as Wher evidence for this criterion. The 
petitioner initially submitted letters from the United States of America National Taekwon-Do 
Federation, Shuko-Kai International, the Southern Pacific Karate Association, and the Seiden-Kai 
Karate Center stating that the beneficiary has served as a "Class A umpire." The beneficiary's 
service as a Class A umpire will be further addressed under the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iv). In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted the ITF's 
"Umpire Rules." Article 17, Umpire Class and Requirements, states: 
1. The "Class A" Umpire 
The criteria for the ITF "Class A" International Umpire are: 
a) At least 25 years old, 
b) Possesses a good sense of fairness and conscience, 
c) Holds an ITF 4th degree or over, 
d) Has successfully attended an official ITF International Umpire Course and holds the 
ITF "Class A" International Umpire certificate, 
e) Has a minimum of three (3) years experience in regular domestic umpiring and has 
good recommendations from his or her National Association, 
f) Participates regularly in authorized ITF Refreshers Courses for Referee and Jury 
Members, 
g) Officiates regularly at tournaments within the ITF jurisdiction. 
We cannot conclude that meeting the preceding age, skill level, education, and experience requirements 
equate to outstanding achievements. Further, while the beneficiary has met the requirements necessary 
to attain his fourth degree black belt ranking and serve as a Class A umpire for the ITF, there is no 
evidence demonstrating that the IITO and ITF require such qualifications for admission to 
membership.6 In fact, "Article 21, Membership" of the ITF Constitution submitted by the petitioner in 
response to the director's request for evidence states: 
Any natural person or any organization of natural persons that officially practices the Taekwon- 
Do spirit, techniques, methodology, theory and training ways developed by the first ITF 
the Founder of Taekwon-Do, and accepts the ITF Constitution, By- 
Laws and Tournament Regulations, can be a member of ITF. 
In this case, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not show that the IITO and the ITF 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the martial arts. 
6 
 For instance, there is no evidence showing that novices, lower belt rankings, or non-umpires are excluded from their 
membership bodies. 
Page 11 
The petitioner submitted a November 1, 2007 letter from the United States of America National 
Taekwon-Do Federation stating that the beneficiary is a member of the "national USA Taekwon-do 
team." As discussed previously, the petitioner also submitted a roster of 62 "Team USA 2007" 
members for the ITF7s 2007 World Cup held in England as posted on the internet site of "Jue's 
Taekwon-Do." We note, however, that the United States of America National Taekwon-Do 
Federation's national team is not the same team as the USA Taekwondo National Team, which is 
recognized by the U.S. Olympic Committee and which competes in international events sanctioned 
by the World Taekwondo Federation, the official governing body for the sport of taekwondo as 
recognized by the International Olympic Committee. We acknowledge that membership on an 
Olympic team or a major national team such as a World Cup soccer team may serve to meet this 
criterion as such teams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous selection process. 
We reiterate, however, that it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets every 
element of this criterion, including that he is a member of a team that requires outstanding achievements 
of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. We will not presume that 
every national team, such as the United States of America National Taekwon-Do Federation's 
national team that was selected to participate in the ITF7s 2007 World Cup, is sufficiently exclusive. 
Without evidence showing, for instance, the selection requirements for the beneficiary's national team, 
we cannot conclude that he meets the elements of this regulatory criterion. 
Counsel further states that the beneficiary has been a member of the USA-National Karate-do 
Federation since February 2006, but the record does not include his membership credential for this 
organization. As stated previously, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533, 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1, 3 n.2; 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 503, 506. Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing 
that the USA-National Karate-do Federation requires outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or international martial arts experts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 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 classij?cation 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 
beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local or regional 
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 
7 
papers. 
The petitioner initially submitted three newspaper articles, but the name of the newspapers and the date 
of the articles were not identified. Further, the articles were unaccompanied by certified English 
language translations. 
 Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign 
language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the 
translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The petitioner also submitted various 
articles about Julio Martinez of the TKCA, but none of these articles mention the beneficiary. The 
plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted the November 2006 issue of 
Taekwondo Times, but none of the articles in this magazine are about the beneficiary. Further, there is 
no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that Taehwondo Times qualifies as a professional or 
major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner also submitted a November 9, 2002 article in La Informacion entitled "National 
Taekwondo starts today." The beneficiary, however, is not mentioned in the article. 
 Further, the 
English language translation accompanying the article was not complete as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner's response also included a September 29, 2004 article in La Informacion entitled 
"Taekwon-do potential stands out in Santiago." The beneficiary is identified along with several other 
individuals in one of the two photographs accompanying the article, but the body of the article does not 
mention him or his achievements. Further, the English language translation accompanying the article 
was not complete as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner also submitted an article entitled "Dominican Earns the right to participate in the Tae 
Kwon Do world championship." The article and an accompanying photograph each contain only one 
sentence briefly mentioning the beneficiary. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the material is about 
the beneficiary. Further, we note that the article and its accompanying English language translation 
did not include the name of publication or the date of the article as required by the plain language of 
this regulatory criterion. Further, the English language translation was not complete as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3). On appeal, counsel states that the article was published in La 
Informacion, but the evidence submitted does not support his claim. As stated previously, the 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 
533, 534 n.2; Matter ofLaureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1, 3 n.2; Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
at 503,506. 
7 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
The petitioner's response also included an article entitled "Haiti & Dominican interchange Tae Kwon," 
but the article and its accompanying English language translation did not identify the name of 
publication or the date of the article. Further, the English language translation was not complete as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). The article and an accompanying photograph 
each contain only one sentence mentioning the beneficiary by name. 
The petitioner also submitted a December 26, 2003 article in La Inforrnacion entitled "Guatemalan 
Horantes: Conquest International Tae Kwon-Do IITO." The beneficiary, however, is not mentioned in 
the article. Further, the English language translation accompanying the article was not complete as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner's response also included an April 27,2006 article in La Inforrnacion entitled "Tae Kwon 
do seminar ends," but the article only mentions the beneficiary's name in passing. Further, the English 
language translation accompanying the article was not complete as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that La Inforrnacion qualifies as a form of major media. The petitioner 
submits a profile of the Dominican Republic obtained from the U.S. Department of State's internet site, 
but this profile does not contain information about La Inforrnacion or the country's major publications. 
The petitioner also submits information printed from www.pressreference.com stating: 
The newspaper with the largest circulation in the Dominican Republic is the Listin Diario 
with a daily circulation of 166,000, a Saturday edition with a circulation of 180,000, and a 
Sunday edition with a circulation of 150,000, numbers that nearly double those of any major 
competitor. . . . Other newspapers, in order of circulation, are the Hoy with a daily, Saturday, 
and Sunday circulation of 82,000; El Nacional with a daily, Saturday, and Sunday circulation 
of 42,000; and the Ultima Hora (statistics NA), all of which are published out of the capital 
of Santo Domingo. Other national papers are El Caribe, circulation 40,000 . . . and El Nuevo 
Diario, circulation 20,000. The largest circulation of regional interest is La Inforrnacion of 
Santiago, circulation 22,000, and one English language paper, The Santo Domingo News. 
The petitioner's appellate submission also includes information printed from www.ab~znewslinks.com 
listing La lnformacion as one of seven "national" newspapers. The preceding information from 
www.~ressreference.com, however, identifies La Inforrnacion as a "regional" publication. It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Even if the petitioner were to resolve this inconsistency, the 
limited regional circulation of La Inforrnacion in relation to the more extensive national circulation 
of Listin Diario, Hoy, El Nacional, and El Caribe is not sufficient to demonstrate that La 
Inforrnacion qualifies as a form of major media. Nevertheless, as discussed previously, the petitioner 
has not established that any of the articles in La Informacion are about the beneficiary. Further, the 
English language translations accompanying the articles in La Inforrnacion were not complete as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedfield of speczjcation for which classzfication 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 
beneficiary'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. 5 204.5(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 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). 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted letters from the United States of America National Taekwon-Do 
Federation, Shuko-Kai International, the Southern Pacific Karate Association, and the Seiden-Kai 
Karate Center stating that the beneficiary has served as a "Class A umpire." In response to the 
director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a photograph of the beneficiary in uniform 
standing under a basketball net between two other individuals in their uniforms about to commence 
sparring. A comment below the photograph states: "Dominican Republic International Tournament 
of Antillas [the beneficiary] in the center as Judge." The date of the tournament and the skill level of 
the competitors were not specified. The petitioner also submitted the ITF's "Tournament Rules." 
Section 1, Article 4: Duties, states: 
a) Jury will normally consist of three (3) senior Umpires who will be seated in the place of 
honor, in front, and will render the final decision in case of a tie or dispute. 
b) Referee will be in the square to control the match. 
c) Judges for Pattern will be seated in a line facing the Competitors. Judges for Sparring will 
be seated at the four comers of the square, they will give points in accordance with their 
judgment. 
In the photograph submitted by the petitioner, the beneficiary is shown in the center controlling the 
sparring match rather than seated as a Judge or Jury member. According to the ITF tournament rules 
submitted by the petitioner, "Judges for Sparring will be seated" and "will give points in accordance 
with their judgment." Accordingly, the preceding photograph does not constitute evidence of 
"[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of others." Moreover, the preceding 
ITF tournament rules do not establish that refereeing an ITF match is tantamount to judging the work of 
others. For instance, the ITF tournament rules indicate that referees "control the match rather than 
award "points in accordance with their judgment." According to the Competition Rules, referees have 
control over the match, but do "not award points" to the competitors. It is the judges who evaluate 
the competitors, assess points, and ultimately determine the outcome of a match. The responsibility 
of the referee, on the other hand, is to ensure that rules and procedures are being followed and that the 
match is safe and fair. A referee whose primary responsibility is to observe a competition and ensure 
that rules or proper procedures are followed is not judging the work of others in the context of this 
criterion. While the letters from the United States of America National Taekwon-Do Federation, 
Shuko-Kai International, the Southern Pacific Karate Association, and the Seiden-Kai Karate Center 
state that the beneficiary has served as a "Class A umpire," there is no evidence showing that he has 
actually participated as a "judge" at officially sanctioned competitions at the national or international 
level. Further, there is no evidence identifying the names of the other competitions in which the 
beneficiary has served as a judge or the dates when they were held. Finally, the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence showing the specific competitive categories judged by the beneficiary, the names 
of the participating athletes, and their level of expertise. Without evidence establishing that the 
beneficiary has actually participated as a judge and that his activities involved judging top athletes at 
the national or international level or were otherwise consistent with this highly restrictive 
classification, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion 
separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the 
evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of the small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The record reflects that USCIS previously approved a P-1 nonirnrnigrant visa petition filed on behalf of 
the beneficiary to perform at a specific athletic competition as an athlete, individually or as part of a 
group or team, at an internationally recognized level of performance. This prior approval does not 
preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased 
standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 
nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonirnrnigrant 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 USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of 
the 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 USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1 988). 
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 has approved a nonirnrnigrant 
petition 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.), afd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.