dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22046723 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 09, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a martial arts athlete, seeks classification as an alien 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 met the initial evidentiary requirements of this classification through 
evidence of either a major, internationallyrecognizedaward or meeting three of the evidentiarycriteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Petitioner now appeals that decision. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361.. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education , business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits dete1mination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a martial arts athlete who has successfully competed in martial arts tournaments at 
the national and international level in the past. He submitted letters from two martial arts training 
schools indicating that he is training and competing at local competitions in preparation for 
competition inl I 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, 1 he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets 
four of the evidentiary criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that he has 
not met the initial evidence requirement for this classification, and is not eligible as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
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) 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must submit evidence of their receipt of awards, that they 
were granted on the basis of excellence in their field of expertise, and that the awards are nationally 
or internationally recognized in that field. Here, the Petitioner lists several awards he claims to have 
received in competitions from2005 to 2016, but provides evidence relating to 
only a few of them. The most recent of these is evidenced by a certificate issued by the 
I indicating that he received a gold medal in thel I division, 
1 In his response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner indicated that hehadreceiveda major, internationally 
recognized award, but did not identify which ofhis awards metthis standardorprovide additional evidence to support this 
claim. He does not repeat this claim on appeal. 
2 
male, and ]weight class atthe 2016 ________ ____,Championship inl 
Thailand. In edition, the Petitioner also submitted evidence concerning his receipt of the following 
awards at sanctioned events: 
• Gold Medal, 2015 Asian Championship,! I Male,I I 
• Silver Medal, 2011 I I World I I Championship, Male I I I 
• Pro-Am Champion, 2011 ...... World Championship 
• First Place, 20111 INational Championship in 
However, there are some discrepancies with this evidence, consisting mainly of certificates with some 
photos of medals, and other evidence in the record. For example, the Petitioner submitted a copy of 
his profile posted on the website ______ which lists him as the "2011 I I 
Champion of Asia." The record does not include evidence that he received this award, nor does he 
claim to have received such an award. While this profile is not an authoritative source of information, 
it presents evidence which conflicts with other evidence in the record. 
In addition, a letter from President of the 
states that the Petitioner was a world champion in Thailand in 2011, 2012 and 2016, and a world champion 
in Indonesia in 2015. But this conflicts with the evidence noted above, which shows that he won a silver 
medal at the 2011 World I !Championship, and that his 2015 gold medal win was at the 
Asianl • IChampionship. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988). 
We further note that both the certificate evidencing the Petitioner's win at the 2011 National 
Championship and the letter from I reference a which indicates that there is or 
was a separate nationaj !association and championship recognized by the apart from those 
recognized by other international martial arts associations. As all of the Petitioner's awards were earned 
at sanctioned events, the record does not establish that they are recognized in the overall martial 
arts field at the national and international levels, including by those who are members of and participate 
in competitions sanctioned by other martial arts associations such as thel I 
Also, as noted by the Director in his opinion, the record lacks evidence of national or international 
recognition of these awards beyond the certificates and medals themselves. The Petitioner submitted 
evidence of a single article which appeared in the newspaper Darakchi which was about thel I 
World Cup to be held inl l Uzbekistan in 2011. This article focuses on thisl !sanctioned 
event, and does not show that the Petitioner's awards received atl I events received any similar 
discussion in either major media or in the martial arts field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the awards he received are not local or regional in nature, and that 
the focus of our analysis should be on the recognition of the awards, not the Petitioner. Although we agree 
with these statements, they do not aid in establishing the national or international recognition of the awards 
received by the Petitioner. As noted above, the record lacks sufficient evidence of the recognition of those 
awards, and there are umesolved inconsistencies regarding his receipt of some of them. Therefore, for all 
3 
of the reasons noted above, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established 
that he meets this criterion. 
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) 
This criterion requires that a petitioner show that they are a member of an association in their field, 
and that the association requires outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized 
experts. In his decision, the Director acknowled ed the letter from in which he confirms 
that the Petitioner has been representing the __________ team since 2010, but noted 
that it did not establish that the national team requires outstanding achievements of its members. On 
appeal, the Petitioner references this letter and asserts that the team meets this requirement. However, 
I letter provides no insight on the selection process for thel I 
team, nor does any other evidence in the record. While membership on a national team may meet the 
requirements of this criterion, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish that those requirements have 
been met in each case. Because he has not done so, we conclude that he has not met this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The evidence submitted under this criterion consists of a single article published in the newspaper 
Zeravshan on I 2008, titled _ While the Petitioner is 
mentioned and quoted in this article, the Director determined that it was not about him. In addition, 
he noted that the evidence did not demonstrate that Zeravshan is a professional or major trade 
publication, or other major media. 
In his appeal, the Petitioner did not address the Director's finding that the article was not about him, 
but asserts that we should focus "on the circulation of the publication, its intended audience if it is a 
professional or trade publication, or the editorial influence of the media source ... " Because the 
Petitioner has not challenged an adverse finding on one of the elements of this criterion, and the record 
includes no evidence of the circulation of Zeravshan or any other information about it, we concur with 
the Director's decision regarding this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
We find that the Petitioner does not satisfy the criteria relating to lesser awards, membership, and 
published material about him. Although he also claims eligibility for an additional criterion on appeal, 
relating to contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), we need not reach this 
additional ground. Because the Petitioner cannot meet the initial evidence requirementofthree criteria 
4 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve that issue. 2 Accordingly, 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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1994 ). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990);see also section 203(b)(l )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 SccINSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26(1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
5