dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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. fj 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. 
ee- 
Aobert P. Wiemann, Ch~ef 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and affirmed that decision on motion. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. In a second decision, the director 
advised that all of the evidence of record had been considered in the initial decision. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the initial denial does not reflect consideration of the petitioner's 
response to the director's notice of intent to deny. While the director purported to quote language from 
counsel's response that does not, in fact, appear in that response, the director does appear to have 
considered the additional evidence submitted. For example, while the director concluded in the notice 
of intent to deny that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to meet the criterion set forth 
in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(i), the director finds that this criterion is met in the final 
decision. It is counsel's position that more discussion of the remaining evidence is warranted. As 
counsel is asserting that the director failed to sufficiently consider the evidence on two occasions, the 
most efficient and responsive action for us is to consider all of the evidence of record on appeal, which 
we will do below. See Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO 
reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established eligibility under the regulatory 
criteria. As will be detailed below, the evidence of record contradicts counsel's assertions regarding 
the petitioner's roles for the U.S. military and law enforcement, seriously reducing counsel's 
credibility. 
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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See Employment-Based Immigrants, 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. tj 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. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria 
will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to clas 
 alien with extraordinary ability as a martial arts 
instructor and competitor in 
 ounsel has asserted that this office has recognized a 
"nexus" between 
 any recognition as an athlete implies ability as a 
- 
coach. Counsel has oversimplified the issue. While a competitor and an instructor certainly share 
knowledge of Jiu Jitsu, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics 
and coaching are not the same area of expertise. As the court explained in Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 
2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002): 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" 
as working in the same profession in which one h raordinary ability, not 
necessarily in any profession in that field. For example, extraordinary ability as 
a baseball player does not imply that he also has ability in all positions 
or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. Nevertheless, counsel is correct that this 
office has recognized that there exists a nexus between playing and coaching a given sport. To 
assume that every extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, however, would be too 
speculative. To resolve this issue, where an alien has clearly achieved national or international 
acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at a national or 
international level, the AAO may consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall 
pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that it can be concluded that coaching is 
within the petitioner's area of expertise. This issue does not arise in this matter, however, as the 
petitioner continues to compete. 
The petitioner is trained in the martial art of Jiu Jitsu. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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). In response to the director's 
notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted evidence that he finished first in the Black Belt Adult 
Super Super Heavy class at the "American National 2005." Counsel asserts that the competition is 
organized by Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and that top athletes from around the world come to Southern 
California to compete. 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). 
 Moreover, as counsel 
mischaracterized the petitioner's role with the U.S. military as discussed below, counsel's credibility is 
diminished. 
The Regulations and Rules of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, submitted as exhibit one, make no mention of the 
American National event and the results submitted as exhibit two do not reference Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. 
We note that the mere fact that competitors may derive from more than one country is insufficient. The 
award must be a major internationally recognized award. We note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3)(i) provides that lesser internationally recognized awards are one of ten alternate criteria, 
of which an alien must meet at least three. Thus, it is clear that the regulations do not suggest that every 
award with an international pool of competitors qualifies as a one-time achievement. 
Congress's example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). As noted above, even a 
lesser internationally recognized award could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of 
which an alien must meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(i). Nobel Laureates, the example 
provided by Congress, are selected from a global pool of nominees, are reported in the top media 
internationally regardless of nationality and are awarded a substantial cash prizes. While an 
internationally recognized award could constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those 
elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award must be internationally 
recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
The record contains no evidence of the American National 2005 competition's international 
recognition, such as evidence that it is covered by the national general or sports media. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that an award from the American National 2005 is a major, internationally 
recognized award. 
Finally, the petitioner did not include any evidence of this award when he initially filed the petition on 
October 13, 2005. The materials submitted in response to the director's notice of intent to deny do not 
indicate when in 2005 the American National 2005 took place. The petitioner must establish his 
eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 
(Regl. Commr. 1971). The petitioner has not established that he won an award at the American 
National 2005 as of the date of filing. 
Barring the alien's receipt of a major internationally recognized 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, 
meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
Consistent with the evidence of the petitioner's award history, including his second place heavy weight 
finish in the Pan American Games, the director found that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
While the petitioner meets this criterion as an athlete, it bears mention that counsel implies that the 
petitioner also meets this criterion as an instructor. Specifically, in the December 2005 response to the 
director's notice of intent to deny, counsel asserted that the petitioner personally instructs members of 
the U.S. military, that he will continue to do so and that one of his students "recently" won a gold 
medal in the Welterweight Divii 
unofficial results reflecting tha 
competition but no evidence than 
Tournament. The petitioner submhed 
Fort Riley, Kansas, won the Welterweight 
student. While the petitioner did provide 
private instruction for a Kansas City police sergeant who asserts that he gained "insights" he can pass 
on to other officers, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner ever served as an official instructor for 
U.S. military or police officer training programs. Thus, the petitioner has not established that any of his 
students won a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award while under his tutelage. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jeld for which classlJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, counsel asserted that the petitioner is a black belt 
member of the International Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Federation. Counsel firther asserts that the petitioner is 
also a black belt member of the Conzderacao Brasileira de Jiu Jitsu, which appears to simply be the 
Portuguese name for the same entity. The record does reflect that the petitioner received his black belt 
certification from the ~onideracao Brasileira de Jiu Jitsu in 2002. 
petitioner is one of approximately 40 non-degree black belts trained by 
has also trained second through eighth degree black belts, five or less 
there are eight levels above that attained by the petitioner. 
A belt level is not an association that admits members. Moreover, the record lacks evidence that a 
specific belt level is based on outstanding achievements rather than passing a competitive test of skill. 
Without additional information, belt level achievements appear more comparable to certification from a 
competitive institution than a membership in an association that requires outstanding achievements of 
its members. 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Counsel further asserted that the petitioner is an original member of the Association of - 
Schools and Academies. Counsel references an invitation to attend a conference in 2005 as evidence of 
this "membership." Training at a prestigious club is no more persuasive than attending a competitive 
institution. Instructing is the petitioner's job. A job offer with a competitive employer cannot serve to 
meet this criterion. Should that position be documented as leading or critical for the employer as a 
whole, that fact would be considered pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, counsel asserted that the petitioner serves in a 
critical and essential capacity for the U.S. military, law enforcement and the International Brazilian Jiu 
Jitsu Federation. 
Counsel asserts that one of the petitioner's former students s the instructor of Modern 
Army Combatives at Fort Riley, Kansas. documented training was at the Gracie 
Barra Academy in Brazil in 2003 Internet biography), which was after 
the petitioner had moved to the United e record) at Fort 
Benning, Georgia under the supervision of himself does not 
claim to have been trained by the The Internet 
materials in the record regarding the United States Combative Arts Association indicate that the U.S. 
Army Rangers "sent several men to train at the Gracie Jiu-Jitsu Academy in Torrance California." 
(Emphasis added.) The record contains no evidence of any affiliation between the petitioner and the 
California affiliate. Thus, the record remains absent any evidence that the petitioner has officially 
assisted the U.S. military with combat training. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
 reside rnational Brazilian Jiu 
Jitsu Federation. We acknowledge pres ige in e field. however, asserts only 
that he has "personally observed [the petitioner's] teachin skills." The Internet materials provided 
tion's website lists the petitioner as & student but not as an instructor. 
who identifies himself as the Vice President of the International Brazilian Jiu Jitsu 
instructor at the Gracie B 
Janeiro under 
 is listed as an instructor o 
The academy 
California. The letter fro letterhead as the earlier letter from 
etter provides no address or phone number for the 
m sserts that the petitioner was "responsible for teaching members of law enforcement" and 
that this responsibility led to his appointment as Director of Local and International Law Enforcement 
Outreach and Training for the International Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Federation. Given the questionable 
claims regarding the petitioner's involvement in training U.S. military personnel, the claim regarding 
law enforcement requires some corroboration. 
ave received any training from the petitioner is 
Supervisor of Firearms and Defensive Tactics for the Kansas City, 
s that the petitioner provided private training in 
icates that he passed on what he learned from the 
e of a formal law enforcement training scheme as 
s contracts or other objective evidence that the 
petitioner has liaise 
 as an official of the International Brazilian Jiu Jitsu 
Federation as claimed b 
In light of the above, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner has performed a leading or critical 
role for Gracie Barra, U.S. law enforcement or the U.S. military. 
Evidence of the alienS original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sinnificance in the field. 
- " -" 
Counsel relies on the letter fro 
 to meet this criterion 
 asserts that as Director 
of Local and International 
 Brazilian Jiu 
Jitsu Federation, the petitioner's responsibilities included: 
1. Identifjing the specific needs of law enforcement personnel and arrang[ing] Jiu Jitsu 
training regimens particular to those needs; and 
2. Correspond[ing] with State and local law enforcement agencies to arrange 
instructional programs. 
As stated above, the record contains no letters from law enforcement agencies affirming this type of 
significant role in establishing training regimens for law enforcement officers. Moreover, the petitioner 
has not established that training law enforcement officers is unique among Jiu Jitsu trainers. Without 
such evidence, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his participation in such training sets him apart 
from others in the field. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzJicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
While neither the petitioner nor counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion, we note the 
submission of the petitioner's 2004 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Fonn 1040 U.S. Individual Tax 
Return. The only income on the return is $20,600 as business income for work as a personal trainer. 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that this remuneration is significantly high for personal trainer 
services consistent with national or international acclaim as one of the few at the top of the field. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
0 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i); 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(2). 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a Jiu 
Jitsu athlete or trainer 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 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a Jiu Jitsu athlete, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.