dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18407301 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 1, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a martial arts competitor and consultant, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of this classification through either 
evidence of a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) or meeting three of 
the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b )( 1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2) . The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a martial arts competitor andl I coach/consultant for competitions, stunts, and 
related training. He intends to enter the United States to work as ~ I martial arts coach. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of these 
evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief statement asserting that the Director's decision was arbitrary 
and capricious, noting that the Director "failed to acknowledge qualified evidence that supported the 
Petition." He asserts that he meets more than three of the evidentiary criteria; specifically, the 
evidentiary criteria relating to lesser awards, published material about him and his work in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media, his original contributions of major significance to 
his field, and his high salary. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that he does 
not meet the requisite three evidentiary criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion, 
and we agree with that determination. 
The Petitioner claims that he has "won competitions at the highest level in Australia, Japan, Abu 
Dhabi, USA, Brazil, London, and many more." The record reflects that the Petitioner has received 
numerous medals and accolades in the fieldl I In support of the petition, the Petitioner 
submitted a list of medals and awards that he received from 2009 to 2018, and also submitted 
documentation indicating that he was either a competitor or finalist at other competitions. For 
2 
example, the list indicates that he was the gold medalist in various compet1t10ns including the 
Australian Federation ofl I Pan Pacific (Black Belt) in 2013 and the 
I !Industries (Black Belt) in 2016. It farther indicates that he was the Japanese! I 
Trials winner in 2017, thel I based super fight event) champion in 2017, and a quarter 
finalist in thel I World Championship in 2018. The list also indicates that he was the gold medalist 
in various lower belt (blue, purple, and brown) competitions hosted by organizations such as the 
International! I and thel I World Pro. 
As it relates to showing that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence 
in his field, the Petitioner provided photographs of medals, screenshots from the websites of the event 
organizers, a Wikipedia article discussing the W orl~ I Championship, an article discussing the 
top ten prestigiou~ I competitions for competitors, and articles confirming his results in 
competitions. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted letters from various event 
organizers discussing the Petitioner's career achievements and attesting to the prestigious reputations 
of their respective competitions. 1 
The Director determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to meet the plain language on 
this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner does not directly challenge the Director's determination. 
Instead, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director disregarded qualified evidence, such as 
industry publication articles identifying the top competitions in the field. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's decision. As noted by the Director, while the letters from 
various event organizations speak highly of the Petitioner and his accomplishments, they do not 
demonstrate that he has won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field. While several of the authors recount the various medals he has received while competing 
at their events, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that his receipt of these medals, many of 
which were earned at lower belt levels, are nationally or internationally recognized in the martial arts 
field. 
For example, a letter froml I Head Organizer o~f....;.'t_he.c..,..._~-------------r~st=a~te.......,s 
that the Petitioner won various competitions hosted by ·n 2017 and 2018, and that th_,__ __ 
World Championships has international media coverage during each event. Another letter from 
I I who claims to be al I expert recounts the winning record of the Pet1~.t-io_n_e~r 
and claims that most competitions organized by tho and the I I are "the most prestigious 
com etitions withinl I Further, the Petitioner relies on an article in Eastern Europe 
hich lists various competitions and identifies organizations such asl I andl I 
L_ ________________ .....----..J.L.J,!.IJ.._...>J.U.l<.IJ,.LLl..li,.....l.Ll.u.....L.u......u .. ,above all others." The article, 
federations in the world, and ~--------~ howe
1
er, lalso indicates that there are various 
many tournaments worldwide. 
A prize or an award does not gamer national or international recognition from the competition in which 
it is awarded, nor is it derived from the individual or group that issued the award. Rather, national and 
international recognition results through the awareness of the accolade in the eyes of the field 
nationally or internationally. This recognition should be evident through specific means; for example 
1 While we only discuss a sampling of the documents here, we have reviewed the record in its entirety. 
3 
but not limited to, national or international-level media coverage. Additionally, unsupported 
conclusory letters from those in the Petitioner's field are not sufficient evidence that a particular prize 
or award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
While the Petitioner has submitted evidence of the various competitions and events in the field, and 
their perception within the field, the limited evidence of media coverage garnered by the Petitioner's 
awards in such competitions is insufficient to establish the level of national or international recognition 
associated with the medals he received at the various competitions discussed herein. Although the 
Petitioner submitted evidence in the form of web articles and industry statements identifying top 
competitions in the field, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's receipt of 
the claimed medals and awards were nationally or internationally recognized. 
While the above materials, and the others in the record, confirm the Petitioner's receipt of these 
awards, they do not demonstrate the national or international significance of the awards won. 2 The 
record lacks other evidence establishing that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field ofi I as required. The Petitioner, therefore, has not submitted 
documentation sufficient to establish his eligibility for this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In order to meet the requirements of this criterion, material must be published in a professional or 
major trade publication or other major media, and must be about a petitioner and relate to their work 
in their field of expertise. In addition, the evidence must include the title, date, and author of the 
material, and evidence in a foreign language must comply with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3) relating to foll English language translations. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. 
In addition to determining that some material was not about the Petitioner, the Director also noted that 
several articles lacked the name of the author, where others were not supported by citation statistics. Upon 
review of the record, we concur with the Director's determination. 
For example, the Petitioner submitted evidence of material about him published inl _ 
Magazine, along with a letter from~ _____ ___, the magazine's editor and publisher.3 Although 
I !indicates that the publication is "distributed on newsstands worldwide," the Petitioner did 
not submit any material establishing the circulation statistics fo~ !Magazine, nor did he 
provide other circulation statistics in which to compare with this publication. As noted by the Director, 
the evidence relating to this publication is in the form of a letter from the publication itself rather than 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing 
guidance on the review of evidence submitted to satisfy the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)) (noting 
relevant considerations in dete1mining if the award or prize meets this criterion, among others, are its national or 
international significance in the field.) 
3 While we only discuss a sampling of the published material here, we have reviewed the record in its entirety. 
4 
published circulation statistics from an official or independent website or other publicly available 
source. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's disregard of this and other publisher letters was 
erroneous, arguing that "such information is a direct source and has the highest probative value." We 
disagree. USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, 
No. CV 06-5105 SJO FMOX, 2007 WL 9229758, at *7 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007) aff'd, 317 F. App'x 
680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on a company's self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
Further, the regulation requires evidence that the published material appear in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. However, the Petitioner relies on information from numerous 
websites, including! "" I which do not indicate that the websites are one of the regulatory 
required publication types. While Internet sites are technically accessible nationally and even 
internationally, we will not presume that every Internet site has significant national or international 
viewership. The act of posting an article online does not necessarily constitute publication in major 
media. 
In light of the above, the evidence discussed above does not meet the plain language requirements for this 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Moreover, and despite the deficiencies noted above, we further observe that the documentary evidence 
reflects published material about the Petitioner relating to his work as an athlete/competitor. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p ]ublished material about the alien in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor 
which classification is sought [ emphasis added]." In the RFE, the Director requested clarification from 
the Petitioner regarding his intended field of endeavor, and the Petitioner affirmed that he intended to 
enter the United States as ~ I coach. Therefore, any published material as a player is not within the 
Petitioner's field of endeavor as a coach. See Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002) 
(upholding a finding that competitive athletics and coaching are not within the same area of expertise). 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not claim, nor does the record of proceeding reflect, that the Petitioner has 
had any published material about him as a coach consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
After review of the totality of the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Additional Criteria 
As we noted above, the Petitioner also asserts on appeal that he meets two additional criteria. 
However, since we have concluded that he does not meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and 
(iii), he cannot meet the requisite three evidentiary criteria to establish that he satisfies the initial 
evidentiary requirement for this classification, and we therefore reserve these issues. 4 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24. 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
5 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form I-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 Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6