dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 21, 2023 In Re: 28785726 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a martial arts instructor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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 had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual 's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petlt10ner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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 claims "national and international champion titles" in several styles of Wushu, or 
Chinese martial arts. The Petitioner has taught martial arts and "Traditional Chinese ;ealthl 
Preservation Techni ues" at China since 2007. He "also holds the position o 
" The Petitioner asserts that he has trained ~---------------------~ law enforcement officers, published books about Wushu, and served as a judge at international 
championship competitions. 
The Petitioner claimed to have received a major, internationally recognized award, and to have 
satisfied six of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had met two of the alternate criteria, pertaining to 
participation as a judge and authorship of scholarly articles, but that the Petitioner had not met the 
other claimed criteria or established that he had received a major, internationally recognized award. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the criteria pertaining to lesser prizes and membership 
in associations. The Petitioner does not contest the Director's other conclusions regarding major 
prizes, published material, and original contributions, and therefore has waived appeal on those 
issues. 1 
We will discuss the two disputed criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field o_f'endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
1 See Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. US. Att'.v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at* 1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
The Petitioner submitted copies of certificates indicating that he won first place at seven competitions: 
• 70 kg Men's Group A, 2000; .........~------------------ ............. 
• 70 kg Men's Group, 2005· 
• 
I
Men's Youth Group Traditional Yang Style Tai Chi Quan, 2006 
lChina;2 ~-------~ 
• Men's Traditional Yang Style Tai Chi Quan, 2013
I I China; and ~-----------~ 
• Three events for males aged 26-55 at the 2017 ~------------------~ o Other Chen Style Taiji Quan; 
o Xingyi, Bagua, Baji, Fanzi; and 
o Other Traditional Hand Forms. 
In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that some of the named events drew from national or 
international pools ofcompetitors, but the Director dete1mined that the Petitioner had not established that 
his "awards had a substantial level of recognition." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the competitions in China "were held under the auspice[s] of ... 
China's official national government agency of all sports." The regulat01y language requires that the 
prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The reputation of the organization holding 
a given competition does not necessarily establish that a given prize or award from that competition is 
nationally or internationally recognized. 3 In this respect, it is significant that the Petitioner has submitted 
background information regarding some of the awarding entities, but he has not submitted evidence about 
awards from the competitions. For example, he did not show that the media, or even the organizations 
themselves, reported or announced the results of the competitions in which he participated.4 The evidence 
submitted does not establish recognition of the awards named on the Petitioner's certificates. 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof with regard to this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classffication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The record contains information about the Petitioner's memberships in various organizations, but on 
appeal, the Petitioner only discusses his membership on theI I 
I 1- Therefore, the Petitioner has waived appeal on the Director's determinations 
regarding the other claimed memberships. 
2 The Petitioner did not document the age range for the "Youth Group." The Petitioner was 29 years old when the 
competition took place in 2006. 
3 The regulation specifically requires national or international recognition of the prize or award; the reputation of the awarding 
entity does not suffice. The USCIS Policy Manual acknowledges this distinction, indicating that "[c]ertain awards from well­
known national institutions" "may" qualify under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). See generally G USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8)(1 ), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
4 National or international media coverage is one possible measure of the national or international recognition of a prize 
or award. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F .2(B )( 1 ). 
3 
When he filed the petition in December 2021, the Petitioner claimed to be a member of the0,but did 
not claim to hold any position within ~ciation, nor did he claim to be seeking such a position. A 
translated membership card from the L_J indicates that the Petitioner registered as a member in 
December 2004. The document does not discuss membership requirements or describe the process by 
which the Petitioner became a member of thel I 
The Director requested additional evidence about the Petitioner's memberships, including governing 
documents to show membership requirements and establish the admission process. 
In response, the Petitio~itted a translated copy of a Certificate of Appo.intmen.t, naming him to a 
four-year term on the l__JAdvisory Committee beginning December 24, 2021, a week before the 
petition's filing date. An accompanying "Member Qualification Evaluation Letter" indicates that the 
Petitioner's "outstanding contributions to Wushu" qualified him for appointment to the Committee. 
In denying the petition, the Director cited several reasons why the Certificate of Appointment and 
accompanying materials lacked probative value. The record does not support all of these grounds. For 
example, the Director stated that the translated documents lacked a translation certification as required by 
8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(14 ), but the required certification is in the record. But one of the Director's key 
conclusions is on a stronger footing. 
A translated web printout identified as including excerpts from the I I constitution indicates that 
individuals "who have made outstanding contributions to and international influence . . . may apply 
directly to the~to become members of the Advisory Committee." The Director correctly observed 
that the submitted printout does not identify the web address of the document to permit verification of the 
claimed contents. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the printout is "from the.__ ____________ ~official 
website:'--------~·" Statements in an appellate brief are not evidence and thus are not entitled 
to any evidentiary weight.I See Mitter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). The stated address is 
for the home page of the website, rather than its constitution specifically. The I I web 
address appears on a separate letter, but not on the printout showing the constitution itself or its translation. 
Furthermore, although the translated web printout includes part of a document identified as the ~I-~ 
constitution the to of the a e bears the insi nia and the name, in both Chinese and English, of the 
------------------~· A banner near the top of the page also identifies the 
This information indicates that the document appeared 
on._____.website, rather than the.__ _ __.website. The burden of proof is on the Petitioner, and the 
Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the constitution appears on thel 
website as claimed, or that the printout in the record matches the document on th~ I website. 
An immigrant petition may be approved after an investigation of the facts in each case, and after a 
dete1mination that the facts stated in the petition are ttue. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). 
Evidence submitted without a means of verification hampers the ability to investigate the facts and 
determine that the facts claimed in the petition are true. Here, the Petitioner did not provide a specific 
address for the document submitted, and did not establish that thel I constitution appears at the 
address shown on the separate letter. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established the authenticity and 
4 
I 
accuracy of the document presented as part of thd !constitution. Therefore, the evidence submitted 
does not meet the Petitioner's burden of proof to establish that his membership on theD Advisory 
Committee constitutes membership in an association that requires outstanding achievements as required 
by 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
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 lesser 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 conclusion 
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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 recognition of his work at a level that 
indicates the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner 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). 
Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner seeks to work in the United States not as a competitive athlete 
but as an instructor. From the limited evidence submitted, the most significant competition documented 
in the record took place in 2013, more than eight years before the Petitioner filed the petition in late 2021. 
In such circumstances, we may place greater weight on the non-competitive activities that the individual 
has pursued. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(A)(2). 
The Petitioner has written articles in scholarly journals and published books for a wider audience, but the 
record does not establish that these publications have had an impact that would show sustained national 
or international acclaim. Much of the Petitioner's work documented in the record is at the provincial 
level, and the Petitioner's information about the large population of Shandong Province does not address 
the statutory requirement for recognition and sustained acclaim at a national or international level. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5