dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6222696 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 30, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a martial artist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability . See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Texas 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. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner practices and teaches karate. The record offers incomplete evidence regarding the 
Petitioner's employment. Materials in the record appear to indicate that he was a science teacher in 
I l while remaining active as a competitor. As of 2018, he was teaching martial arts to children 
and young adults with autism and developmental disabilities. He states that he seeks to "open schools in 
different places," and to establish "a Sports Cultural Park in which he will train both special need and 
non-special need students." 1 
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 Petitioner claims to have met five criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the first evidentiary criterion, relating to prizes. On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the third, fourth, and eighth evidentiary criteria. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not met any of them. 
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 found that the Petitioner satisfied the requirements of this criterion, because the Petitioner 
"submitted evidence in the form of newspaper articles which establishes the beneficiary was part of a 
1 When he filed the petition in December 2016, he was not authorized to work or reside in the United States, his B-2 
nonimmigrant visitor's visa having expired in June 2016. He subsequently obtained work authorization. 
2 
team ... which won first place on two occasions at thd I Games." For the reasons explained 
below, we disagree and withdraw this portion of the Director's decision. 
A translated 1996 news;aper cli~ing from Meridiano profiled an athlete from the UniversiF ofj I, who c~rpeted lat the ',__ ____________ _.' ( 
I 1 I) i Florida. The article indicates that athletes are scored 
on kata, defined as "form," and kumite, defined as "combat." A passage in that article reads: "Our brand 
new champion also said that other athlete winners were" five named athletes, including the Petitioner, 
said to have won a "black ribbon, third in kumte [sic]." 
Undated clippings from unnamed publications indicate that the~team, including the Petitioner, won 
various prizes at I !competitions in I I Without dates, we cannot tell how many different 
competitions are discussed. 
The regulation requires documentation of the Petitioner's receipt of his claimed prizes. The Petitioner 
did not submit documentation from the claimed awarding entity, and the newspaper articles contain 
minimal information about the prizes and the competitions. Only one article is dated, and even then, that 
article cited a teammate who "said that other athlete winners" included the Petitioner. Thus, the 
information about the Petitioner's performance in the 1996 competition is third-hand, rather than 
documentation of his receipt of any prize or award. 
The I ts founder states that the event has occurred annually inl I since 1979, and "is recognized 
worldwide as one of the most important" of its kind. A statement from the event's own founder cannot 
suffice to establish the event's claimed international recognition. Officials of other martial arts schools 
contend that the I I "is recognized worldwide as one of the most important" and "the greatest 
tournament in martial arts worldwide," but the record lacks evidence of a caliber that ought to be readily 
available if this were the case. These individuals claim that several different martial arts organizations 
"endorse this tournament," but the record contains no corroboration from those organizations. 
The Petitioner submits what he claims is "an online print-out ofthel bames' website 
informin the ames will be held inc=] Peru in 2019." The submitted printout is from Wikipedia, not 
"the~--.------..--~ Games' website." Furthermore, the submitted printout concerns "Karate at 
the 2019,__ ___ ___, Games," not thel [ Tuel I Games are held every for yearl in 
different locations; the Petitioner acknowrdges Tat the 2019 games were inl I The in 
contrast, takes place every year, always in There is no evident connection between the events 
other than the similar names. On appeal, the Petitioner specifically claims to have won prizes "at the 
I !Games," and the Director appears to have relied on this information when finlding thj1 the 
Petitioner had satisfied the regulatory requirements of this criterion. The conflation of the with 
the unrelated! I Games raises very serious questions regarding the Petitioner's credibility and 
good faith. 
We withdraw the Director's favorable finding because (1) the record does not establish that prizes or 
awards from thel lare nationally or internationally recognized, and (2) the Petitioner did not submit 
documentary evidence that he received the claimed prizes or awards from the I I 
3 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of certificates, containing the following information: 
• The Karate! I organization gave the Petitioner a certificate of recognition in 2010 "for his 
valuable contribution and commitment to all the activities of this organization, to promote 
between children and adults the fundamental values of respect, discipline, and perseverance 
integral to being human." 
• Another certificate from Karatel I from 2015, recognized the Petitioner's "long career as 
an athlete, perseverance and dedication on the formation of martial artists of new generations." 
• The Free Karate Association System ofl I gave the Petitioner an "Honor of Merit" in 
2015 "for his great career in martial arts ... , being a fundamental pillar for the formation of new 
generations of practitioners of our style." 
The Petitioner did not establish that these certificates are nationally or internationally reco~rizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. We note that one certificate from KarateL__Jbears 
the Petitioner's signature, and identifies him as president of the organization. Newspaper clippings in the 
record appear to indicate that Karatel I originated atD while the Petitioner was on the "science 
faculty" there. 
The record does not include documentation showing that the Petitioner received nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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 Petitioner submitted copies of certificates indicating that he performed functions for the International 
Sport Karate Association and the World Kickboxing League. The certificates do not specifically refer to 
the Petitioner as a member of either organization or establish their membership requirements. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not satisfied this criterion. Because the Petitioner has not 
contested this finding on appeal, he has effectively abandoned it. See Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 
F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); see also, Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 
4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). 
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 necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submitted copies of several newspaper clippings, some of which the Petitioner also cited 
as evidence of his claimed prizes and awards. The Director found these clippings to be deficient because 
they do not include the required title, date, author, or some combination of these. Clippings from 
unidentified sources cannot be shown to come from major media. Also, the Petitioner is not the subject 
4 
of these article; generally, the articles list participants in competitions, including the Petitioner's name 
among many others. 
Some articles from identified publications mention the Petitioner only briefly. For instance, the 
previously discussed 1996 article in Meridiano named the Petitioner only in the context of a list of 
competitors. Other articles, such as a 2002 article from Calidad de Vida, did not identify the Petitioner 
at all. These articles are not about the Petitioner as the regulation requires. 
Only one submitted article includes the title, author, and date, and devotes significant attention to the 
Petitioner. A 2000 article in Torneo quoted the Petitioner at length regarding a "new training system" at 
~ The Petitioner did not submit evidence to show that Torneo qualifies as professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Asked for more evidence, the Petitioner submitted background information about El Nacional, Ultimas 
Noticia, and Meridiano Television. The Petitioner relies on this information on appeal as well. The 
Petitioner has not shown, however, that those media outlets published material about him. One 
photocopied article shows the title Ultimas Noticia, but that article mentions the Petitioner only once, 
when reporting how members of the Petitioner's team performed at a competition. The Petitioner did not 
establish the connection, if any, between the Meridiano newspaper and Meridiano Television, and even 
then, as noted, the Meridiano article is about a different athlete and mentions the Petitioner only once. 
We agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
Two claimed criteria remain: 
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 allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
Nevertheless, as shown above, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria already discussed. As 
such, the two remaining criteria cannot suffice to meet the Petitioner's initial evidentiary requirements. 
Because the Petitioner cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), detailed discussion of the two remaining criteria cannot change the outcome of this 
appeal. Therefore, we reserve the remaining issues. 2 
2 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); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
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. 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
G