dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 06 277 52235 
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 1 153(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. fj 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). 
,LLm hct 
P John F. Grissom 
bw Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, a martial arts school, 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. 5 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. $204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 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. 5 204.5(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 
the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on September 25, 2006, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a "Taekwondo Master Instructor and Trainer." Regarding his plans for 
employment in the United States, the beneficiary states: "I intend to stay in the United States and 
work as a Tae Kwon Do Instructor at Pan American Tae Kwon Do Association, Inc." In response to 
the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a November 7, 2006 letter from- 
President, Pan American Tae Kwon Do Association, stating: 
[The beneficiary] has been working at the Chung's Tae Kwon Do Academy since June 2004 
as a Tae Kwon Do Master Instructor and as an instructor in Haedong Kumdo Korean sword 
training with dedication, integrity, leadership and great talent to become and outstanding 
teacher. 
I am grateful to have [the beneficiary] teaching in my academy and am sure [the beneficiary] 
will always bring the best out of him to benefit the students and the parents. 
Aside from his activities as a taekwondo instructor and coach, the record includes evidence showing 
that the beneficiary competed successfully in taekwondo tournaments from the mid- 1980s to 1994. 
However, according to the November 7, 2006 letter from the petitioner, the beneficiary's personal 
statement, and Part 6 of the Form 1-140 petition, "Basic information about the proposed 
employment," the beneficiary is seeking work in the United States as a taekwondo instructor rather 
than as a competitive athlete. Subsequent to 1994, there is no evidence indicating that the 
beneficiary, age 32 at the time of filing, has remained active as a taekwondo competitor at the 
national or international level. The statute and regulations require the beneficiary's national or 
international acclaim to be sustained and that he seeks to continue work in hs area of expertise in the 
United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $8 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), 
and 8 C.F.R. $§ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a taekwondo competitor and an instructor certainly share 
knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics 
and taekwondo instruction are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in 
Federal Court. In Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any 
profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player does 
not imply that he also has extraordinary 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. In the present matter, there is no 
evidence showing that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim through 
achievements as a taekwondo competitor subsequent to 1994 or that he intends to compete here in 
the United States. Further, the evidence is clear that the beneficiary intends to work as a taekwondo 
instructor. While the beneficiary's athletic accomplishments as a taekwondo competitor are not 
completely irrelevant and will be given some consideration, ultimately he must satisfy the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) through his achievements as a taekwondo instructor and coach. 
Page 4 
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). 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. 5 204.5(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. § 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted Certificates of Merit won by the beneficiary at various taekwondo 
championships from 1986 thorough 1994. Several of these award certificates were from local 
elementary, middle, and high school taekwondo tournaments. Local awards from student 
competitions are not tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field. With regard to awards won by the beneficiary in junior or student level 
competition, 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. Cornrnr. 1994); 56 
Fed. Reg. at 60899.' Likewise, it does not follow that an athlete who has had success in junior or 
student level competition 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." 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
2 
 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 1533 19 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, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(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. (j 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 5 
The petitioner's initial submission included Certificates of Merit presented to the beneficiary for 
winning the third rank in the lightweight class at the "3d Nationwide Taekwondo Meet for Winning 
the Championship Flag of Ministry of National Defense" (1994)' being a semifinal winner in the 
welterweight class at the "2nd Nationwide Taekwondo Meet for Winning the Championship Flag of 
Ministry of National Defense" (1993), and winning first place in the lightweight class at the "1993 
Nationwide Taekwondo Event Championships" of the Korea Taekwondo Association. Although the 
record contains a certified translation, it is unclear which of these certificates, if any, to which the 
translation certification pertains. The submission of a single translation certification that does not 
identify the document or documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), which requires that 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a June 2 1,2007 "Certificate of Taekwondo Experience" issued by 
the President of the Korea Taekwondo Association affirming that the beneficiary won "lSt place of 
light category in National New Face Championships 1993," Ynd place of welter category in 2nd 
Defense Minister's Cup National TKD Championships" (1993)' and "3rd place of light category in 
3rd Defense Minister's Cup National TKD Championships" (1994). The petitioner also submits a 
June 25, 2007 "Verification of Taekwondo Achievements" issued by the President of the Korea 
Taekwondo Association stating that the beneficiary was a "Medal winner" at the "1993 Taekwondo 
Hanmadang" Championships in the "Foot break" category." The petitioner's appellate submission 
includes information from the World Taekwondo Federation's internet site discussing the 2005 
World Taekwondo Hanmadang competition, but there is no information about the 1993 Hanmadang 
Championships or the significance of the beneficiary's medal in the "Foot break" category. 
The record does not include supporting evidence demonstrating the significance and magnitude of 
the preceding competitive events won by the beneficiary. The plain language of the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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 commanded a 
significant level of recognition beyond the tournaments where they were presented. Nevertheless, 
there is no evidence indicating that the beneficiary has received awards in taekwondo competition 
subsequent to 1994 or that he intends to continue competing in the United States. As discussed, the 
statute and regulations require the beneficiary's national or international acclaim to be sustained and 
that he seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See sections 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $9 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. 
$5 204.5@)(3) and (5). While the beneficiary's awards as a competitive athlete are not completely 
irrelevant and will be given some consideration, ultimately he must satisfy the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(i) through his achievements as an instructor or a coach. As such, the 
beneficiary's awards and competitive results demonstrating his past record of success as a 
taekwondo competitor from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s cannot serve to meet this regulatory 
criterion. 
Aside from the beneficiary's awards in tournament competition, the petitioner submitted the 
following: 
1. Dan Certificate issued by the President of the Kukkiwon on April 5, 2004 stating that the 
beneficiary attained 6th Dan "at a test conducted in accordance with the rules and 
regulation of the Kukkiwon for promotion test;" 
2. Dan Certificate issued by the President of the Kukkiwon on December 7, 1997 stating 
that the beneficiary attained 5th Dan "at a test conducted in accordance with the rules and 
regulations of the Kukkiwon for promotion test;" 
3. Certificate issued by the President of the Korea World Taekwondo Association on 
December 27, 2006 stating that the beneficiary attained 6th Dan "at the test conducted in 
accordance with the rules and regulation of this association for a promotion test;" 
4. Certificate of Merit issued by the President of the World Taekwondo Federation and the 
President of Kyung Moon College stating that the beneficiary received a "Diploma for 
hisiher superior performance in Taekwondo Competition by Kyung Moon College for the 
Millennium World University Taekwondo Open Tournament" (1 999); 
5. Certificate of Appreciation issued to the beneficiary by the President of the World 
Taekwondo Federation for his "dedicated service and contribution to the development of 
Taekwondo" (200 1 ); 
6. Letter of Commendation issued by the President of the Kukkiwon on December 22, 2001 
stating that the beneficiary was awarded a "Diploma for hisiher unlimited efforts of self- 
sacrifice to bring about the development and popularization of Taekwondo, as a result of 
a great contribution to the promotion of Taekwondo culture;" 
7. Certificate of Appreciation issued by the Florida Sports Foundation to the beneficiary in 
recognition of his "valuable contribution and support of Florida's 2006 Sunshine State 
Games;" 
8. Certificate of Appreciation issued by 
 U.S. Tae Kwon Do College recognizing the 
beneficiary's involvement in "a special sparring seminar" on November 20,2006; 
9. Certification issued by the President of the Korea University Taekwondo Federation 
reflecting that the beneficiary was recognized as "Best CoacWManager" at the 28th 
National Collegiate Taekwondo Championship (2001); 
10. Certification issued by the Dean of Kook Jae College reflecting that the beneficiary was 
recognized as "MVP - 1, Best CoacWManager" at the 99 Millennium World Taekwondo 
University Festival; and 
11. Certification issued by the Dean of Taekwondo at Chunnam Techno College reflecting 
that the beneficiary was recognized as "Best CoacWManager" at the 2nd and 3rd Woo Am 
Cup International Taekwondo Championships in 1999 and 2000. 
With regard to items 1, 2, and 3, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the 
beneficiary's receipt of "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field." The preceding certificates reflect that the beneficiary earned a promotion in rank based 
on his successful completion of a taekwondo skills test. Such 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 ceremonies in which the beneficiary received his certificates commanded national 
or international recognition. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's 
successful mastery of required skills and attainment of higher Dan rankings constitutes his receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Further, we note that item 3 was issued 
subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the December 27, 2006 Dan 
certificate in this proceeding. 
In regard to item 4, there is no evidence showing that this certificate is a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award, rather than simply an acknowledgment of the beneficiary's participation. 
Further, the certificate does not specify the capacity or the event category in which the beneficiary 
competed, coached, refereed, performed a skills demonstration, or provided some other type of 
service at the tournament. 
Regarding items 5 through 11, the petitioner has not established that these honors had a significant 
level of recognition beyond the presenting organizations. For instance, the certificates fiom the 
Florida Sports Foundation and the certifications fiom the colleges reflect regional or institutional 
recognition rather than national or international recognition. There is no supporting evidence 
demonstrating that items 5 through 11 are tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the beneficiary's field. Further, with regard to item 8, this 
certificate was issued subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish 
the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this certificate in this proceeding. 
Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by taekwondo competitors coached 
primarily by the beneficiary can also be considered for this criterion. In that regard, the petitioner 
submitted a copy of the beneficiary's 2003 coaching credential from the 2003 U.S. Junior Olympic 
Taekwondo Championships. The petitioner also submitted a certificate and competitive results 
reflecting that the beneficiary's student, won a bronze medal in the "Green belt Age 
10-1'1 division" at the 2003 U.S. Junior Olympic Taekwondo Championships. According to the 
results submitted by the petitioner, the skill level of the green belt rank is superseded by the higher 
belt ranks of blue, red, and black. Regarding awards won in "Junior," age-group, or lower belt level 
competitions, we do not find that successfully coaching their recipients demonstrates that the 
beneficiary "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). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an August 8, 2000 article in the "Neighbors" section of the 
Daytona Beach News-Journal discussing a visit by the beneficiary and four other black belts to the 
International Taekwondo Academ in Ormond Beach. The article states that the black belts, under 
the direction of Grand Master & of Korea, came to the Ormond Beach school "to help local 
students prepare for the 2oth U.S. Junior Olympic Championships in San Antonio, Texas" in July 
2000. The article lists the school's youth medal winners, but there is no evidence showing that the 
beneficiary, a foreign exchange visitor at that time, was their primary coach. In fact, the article 
states that 
 ran the Ormond Beach school. The petitioner also submits an article 
in the July 2007 issue of the Weston Post stating that Peter Doscher, a 9th grader, and - 
a 7th mader. won gold medals at the Florida's 2007 Sunshine State Games. The article further states 
recognition at the youth level rather than a national or international recognition at very the top level 
of the sport, the 
 gold medals were won by the beneficiary'sstudents subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of 
filing. 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the 
AAO will not consider their gold medals in this proceeding. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that top athletes (such as senior national black belt 
competitors) coached primarily by the beneficiary have won nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classz~cation 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. 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted Dan Certificates issued by the President of the Kukkiwon 
stating that the beneficiary attained 5th Dan on December 7, 1997 and 6th Dan on April 5, 2004. In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the 
President of the Korea World Taekwondo Association on December 27, 2006 stating that the 
beneficiary attained 6th Dan. This latter Dan certificate was issued subsequent to the petition's filing 
date. A petitioner, however, must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will 
not consider the December 27, 2006 Dan certificate in this proceeding. The petitioner also 
submitted ''International Taekwondo Association Time in Rank Requirements" reflecting the time 
periods for advancement from one rank to the next. We cannot conclude that meeting the minimum 
time requirements for earning the next Dan level ranking and passing a forms and theory test 
constitute outstanding achievements. The petitioner's response also included the beneficiary's 
"Certificate of Association Membership" for the Korea World Taekwondo Association (April 25, 
2005), a "Certificate of Appointment" from the Korea World Taekwondo Association (April 25, 
2005) reflecting that the beneficiary was appointed a "Master" "in accordance with article 20 of the 
rules of association," and an "International Martial Arts Instructor Certificate" issued to the 
beneficiary by the Korea World Taekwondo Association (November 27, 2005) based on his 
"successful completion of the teakwondo [sic] instructor test in full accordance with the rules and 
regulations." The record, however, does not include evidence of the actual requirements specified in 
"article 20 of the rules of the association" or the association's b'rules and regulations." While the 
beneficiary has met the time and skill requirements necessary to attain his 6th Dan ranking and to be 
appointed as a master and an international instructor, there is no evidence demonstrating that the Korea 
World Taekwondo Association and the Kukkiwon require such qualifications for admission to 
membership.3 The record does not include evidence (such as membership bylaws or official 
admission requirements) showing that the preceding organizations require outstanding achievements 
of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the martial arts. 
Accordingly, 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 Jield for which classiJication 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 sigmficant national or 
international distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fi-om 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 
papers. 
4 
The petitioner submitted articles fiom several Korean language publications, but only a single article in 
Gwangnam Ilbo (October 23, 1998) was primarily about the beneficiary. The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." With regard to the article 
in Gwangnam Ilbo, there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that this publication 
qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. The 
petitioner also submitted online competitive results whch merely list the beneficiary's name and a 
column authored by the beneficiary in Tae Kwon Do Times, but none of this material meets the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted two articles in the Korean- 
American Journal and the Korean Weekly Journal dated November 8, 2006, but the accompanying 
English language translations were incomplete and were not certified by the translator as required by the 
3 
 For example, there is no evidence showing that lower belt rankings, non-instructors, or lesser Dan levels are excluded 
from their membership bodies. 
4 
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. 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Nevertheless, these articles were published subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of 
filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the 
AAO will not consider these articles in this proceeding. Even if we were to consider the articles, 
their author was not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Further, 
there is no evidence showing that the preceding publications qualify as professional or major trade 
publications or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included program material from Chung's 
Tae Kwon Do Academy such as its "Annual Exhibition and Festival" program for 2005, "2006 Black 
Belt Testing & Masters Exhibition" program, 2006 Report, and 2007 Year Planning Program, but there 
is no evidence showing that this internal material was published in professional or major trade 
publications or some other form of major media, or that it meets the other requirements of this 
regulatory criterion. 
As discussed, the petitioner's appellate submission included an August 8, 2000 article in the Daytona 
Beach News-Journal discussing a visit by the beneficiary and four other black belts to the 
International Taekwondo Academy in Onnond Beach. The article, entitled "Tae kwon do students 
win Junior Olympics medals" only mentions the beneficiary's name in passing. The petitioner also 
submits an article in the July 2007 issue of the Weston Post entitled "Weston athletes Bring Home 
the Gold," but again the article only briefly mentions the beneficiary. The petitioner's appellate 
submission also includes captioned photographs of the beneficiary in the "Snapshots" section of the 
May 2, 2008 issue of Weston Gazette and the "South Florida" section of the March 7, 2008 issue of 
Sea Latino. Neither of these photographs was accompanied by an article about the beneficiary. 
Further, the preceding material was published subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, 
however, must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the 2007 and 
2008 material in the Weston Post, the Weston Gazette, and Sea Latino in this proceeding. Further, 
there is no evidence showing that the preceding publications (including the Daytona Beach News- 
Journal) qualify as professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, 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 alliedJield of speclJication for which classification 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. 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 
Page 1 I 
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. $204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner initially submitted a qualification certificate issued by the President of the Korea 
Taekwondo Association (March 19, 1999) stating that the beneficiary "passed the 3d Grade Referee 
Qualification Test," but the English language translation accompanying the certificate was not certified 
by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). In response to the director's 
request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a November 6, 2006 letter from the Chairman, 
International Referee Committee, World Taekwondo Federation, stating that the beneficiary "has a 
Third Grade Referee Qualification." On appeal, the petitioner submits a "Certification of 3d Degree 
Tae kwon Do Referee" reflecting the beneficiary's competency to officiate at the national level. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a 
judge of the work of others." While the preceding documentation reflects that the beneficiary is 
qualified to serve as a referee, there is no evidence showing that he has actually participated as a judge 
at officially sanctioned competitions at the national or international level. There is no evidence 
identifying the names of the competitions refereed by the beneficiary and the dates when they were 
held. Nor has the petitioner 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 are otherwise consistent with 
this highly restrictive classification, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signijicance in the field. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of several reference letters from taekwondo 
organizations, coworkers, parents, and students praising the beneficiary's qualifications, experience, 
and talent as an instructor. Talent and activity in one's field, however, are not necessarily indicative 
of original athletic contributions of major significance. The record lacks evidence showing that the 
beneficiary has made original contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted his field. 
With regard to the beneficiary's athletic and coaching achievements, the reference letters do not 
specify exactly what his original contributions in taekwondo have been, nor is there an explanation 
indicating how any such contributions were of major significance to his field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. While the beneficiary has helped his students with their skills and 
training, there is nothing in the reference letters to suggest that he has developed original training 
techniques, as opposed to methodologies passed down from his own tutelage in the martial arts. 
Further, even if the techniques taught by the beneficiary were found to be original, there is nothing 
to demonstrate that these techniques have had major significance in the sport of taekwondo. For 
example, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary's training techniques have been widely 
Page 12 
adopted throughout his sport or have significantly influenced others in his field nationally or 
internationally. 
In this case, the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the beneficiary's personal 
contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major 
significance that one would expect of that one would expect of a martial arts athlete or a taekwondo 
instructor who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation 
showing that the beneficiary's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his 
sport, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jeld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted title pages for the beneficiary's bachelor's degree thesis entitled "A Study 
on the Power for Scoring Points of Double Kicking Technique in Taekwondo Competition" and his 
graduation thesis entitled "A Study on the Research Survey of the Current Situation and the Reality 
of Taekwondo in the United States Focused on Florida." The petitioner also submitted a column 
authored by the beneficiary in Tae Kwon Do Times, but there is no evidence showing that his column 
constitutes a scholarly article in the field. Further, the English language translations accompanying the 
preceding articles were not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3). Finally, there is no evidence showing the beneficiary's articles were published in 
professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted Chung7s Tae Kwon Do Academy's "Annual Exhibition and Festival" 
program for 2005 showing the beneficiary posing with a sword. The petitioner also submitted two 
articles from April 2003 in the Korean News and the Korean-American Journal mentioning a 
taekwondo demonstration given by the beneficiary at the O'Connell Center Gymnasium at the 
University of Florida. The English language translations accompanying these articles were incomplete 
and were not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103,2(b)(3). 
Nevertheless, the plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it applies to the visual arts 
(such as sculpting and painting) rather than to sports such as taekwondo. The ten criteria in the 
regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. 
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's taekwondo demonstrations compare to the 
exclusive showcases of an artist's work that are contemplated by this regulation for visual artists. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the beneficiary was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a June 27,2007 letter from Chung's 
Tae Kwon Do Academy, stating that the beneficiary is a vital part of his business and praising the 
beneficiary's talents and abilities. The record does not include evidence showing that Chung's Tae 
Kwon Do Academy has a distinguished reputation. Further, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary's role for the business was leading or critical. For example, there is no evidence 
demonstrating how the beneficiary's role differentiated him from the other master instructors employed 
by the academy, let alone -;, the business owner. The documentation submitted by 
the petitioner does not establish that the beneficiary was responsible for the academy's success or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
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. 
§ 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. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
While USCIS has approved at least two 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary, these prior approvals do 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. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
Because USCIS spends less time reviewing I- 129 nonimmigrant petitions than I- 140 immigrant 
petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. 
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also, Texas A&A4 Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 
Page 14 
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. lNS, 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.