dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
ma- - 
pmwc copy 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 9 
EAC 05 050 52939 
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. S, 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. A11 documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
> Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 
3 204.5(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. 3 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on August 31, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a martial arts athlete. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. The record 
reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since August 3, 2001. Given the length of 
time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than three years), 
it is reasonable to expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The 
petitioner has had ample time to establish a reputation as an athlete in this country. 
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, international recognized 
award). Bamng 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Docume~ztation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the3eld of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. "Honor Certificate" naming the petitioner a "National Outstanding Athlete in 1999" 
2. Fill-in-the-blank certificate (undated) from the "Chinese Wushu Association" stating that the 
petitioner "passed the Wushu Dan Examination" 
3. Fill-in-the-blank certificate (undated) allegedly issued by the "People's Republic of China 
Committee of Sports & Athletics" granting the petitioner "the honor of Martial Arts Hero" 
4. "Certificate of Honor" from the "Bureau of Art & Literature of Shen Yang City" (September 2000) 
5. Fill-in-the-blank "National Athletic Competition Honor Certificate" for achieving "Second prize of 
male Chopper skills" (1998) 
6. Fill-in-the-blank "National Athletic Competition Honor Certificate" for achieving "Sixth 
Almightiness" (1998) 
7. "Honor Certificate" stating that the petitioner won the "Ju Ling Cup Ten best Martial Arts Award 
(November 17,1990) ' 
8. "Certificate of Honor" stating that the petitioner "won The Gold Award of Long Sword" at the 
1997 "'Super Sai De Cup' . . . International Martial Arts Intercourse Competition" 
9. "Certificate of Honor" naming the petitioner a "National Martial Art Outstanding Individual 
because of his outstanding performance in Martial Art Education in 1995" 
10. "Certificate of Honor" from the "People's Government of Liaoning Province" naming the 
petitioner a "Single sport active individual" (1999) 
11. Fill-in-the-blank "Certificate" stating that the petitioner achieved second place of "Middle and 
Young" in the "99' China Qingdao International Wushu Championship." 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) 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 translations accompanying the petitioner's award certificates 
were not certified as required by the regulation. 
The petitioner also submitted what is alleged to be an article published in Wu Lin in 2000 stating that he was 
"youth group champion" at the "Beijing National San Da Challenge Competition." However, none of the 
certificates in items 1 through 1 I correspond to this sporting event. The petitioner offers no explanation 
regarding the omission of first-hand evidence of his award from this competition. 
' We note that the petitioner was born on February 25, 1984. On November 17, 1990, he would have been only six years 
old. 
Page 4 
Interestingly, the petitioner has submitted awards limited to a ten-year period from 1990 to 2000 (or from age 
six to age sixteen). There is no evidence showing that the petitioner has received a significant award for 
which he would have faced competition from throughout his field, rather than his approximate age group 
within that field. A youth award may place the petitioner among the top juveniles in a particular sporting 
event, but if offers no meaningful comparison between the petitioner and the most experienced and practiced 
martial arts professionals. In this case, the petitioner's youth awards fail to demonstrate 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. $204.5(h)(2). 
Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has won any significant athletic competitions in 
China or the United States subsequent to 2000. The absence of such awards indicates that the petitioner has 
not sustained whatever acclaim he may have earned as a youth in China during the 1990's. 
In regard to items 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11, we note that large-scale competitions typically issue event programs 
listing the order of events and the names of the participating athletes. At a competition's conclusion, results 
are usually provided indicating how each participant performed in relation to the other competitors in his or 
her events. The petitioner, however, has provided no evidence of the official comprehensive results for the 
competitions for which he submitted award certificates. 
In regard to items 4 and 10, we find that these awards reflect local or provincial recognition rather than 
national or international recognition. 
In regard to items 1 through 11, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing the degree of recognition 
accorded to his awards. The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not indicate the total number of 
certificates distributed, the criteria used in determining recipients, or the level of publicity associated with the 
award presentations. We note here that section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation 
of sustained national or international acclaim. Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must provide adequate 
evidence showing that the certificates presented under this criterion enjoy significant national or intemational 
stature. Simply alleging that an award is nationally recognized cannot suffice to satisfy this criterion. In this 
case, the record includes no supporting documentation from the awarding entities confirming the authenticity 
of the petitioner's awards. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classzfication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or intemational experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the 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. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
Page 5 
The petitioner submitted what is alleged to be his membership certificate for the Chinese Wushu Association 
(CWA) indicating "Dan: 7." In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted what he 
alleges is a copy of the "Chinese Wushu Association's grade system." This document includes no address, 
phone number, or any other information through which this association may be contacted in order to verify 
the information related to the petitioner or the validity of his individual membership status. According to the 
grading system document, beyond Dan 7, the petitioner's level, there exist the more advanced levels of 8 and 
9. The petitioner does not explain how attaining level 7 demonstrates 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). Nevertheless, the 
information provided in the "grade system" document does not establish that admission to membership in the 
CWA required outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or international 
experts in consideration of his admission to membership. 
The petitioner also submitted what is alleged to be his membership certificate for the Shanghai Wushu 
Association (SWA). We note, however, that this is a local association rather than a national association. 
Further, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of the membership bylaws or the official admission 
requirements for this association. There is no evidence demonstrating that admission to membership in the 
SWA required outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or international 
experts in consideration of his admission to membership. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classijication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 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 or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language that most 
of the population cannot comprehend. 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.2 
The petitioner submitted two articles allegedly published in Wu Lin and Linoning Daily News in 2000. The 
translations accompanying these articles were not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3). Further, the petitioner is not the primary subject of the article in Liaoning Daily News. There 
is no evidence showing that these publications have substantial national readership or that the petitioner has 
been the subject of published material in the United States or China subsequent to 2000. In this case, we find 
no evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner has earned sustained acclaim in the national media of China or 
the United States. 
2 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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied 
to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner 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 petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record contains no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.