dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 2 9 2014 Office : TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b )(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectiv ely. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/Jwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~(~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on June 4, 2013, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in martial arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
I. LAW 
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. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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 H.R. 723 101
51 
Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. !d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination. " Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead 
of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which we did)," and if the petitioner failed to 
submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as we concluded) ." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part appmach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, we will review the evidence 
under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit 
qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. AREA OF EXPERTISE 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act provides that the petitioner must seek to continue to work in her 
area of extraordinary ability. In Parts 5 and 6 of Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
the petitioner listed her occupation and job title as a martial arts master. In addition, the petitioner 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirem ents 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
indicated in her cover letter that she had competed most recently in October 2011 , almost one year 
before filing the petition. She continued: 
I also feel there is a great need for a genuine martial arts master 's direction and 
instruction to fully showcase the true beauty of this sport in the United States. . . . I 
am compelled to teach anyone who sincerely and truly has the desire and ability 
receive such instructions. I would also be honored to teach self-defense classes to the 
general public, as any advantage a person carries within himself is profitable when 
confronted with a hostile adversary. 
In the director's request for additional evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8), 
the director indicated that the petitioner did not establish a prearranged commitment to work in her 
field of expertise as a martial arts master. In response to the director's request, the petitioner 
submitted a letter restating her intention to "teach self-defense classes to the general public ." 
Furthermore, the petitioner submitted a job letter from Chairman of Inc., 
who stated that the petitioner would be employed by as a "Tai Chi 
Instructor " and her duties would include scheduling and teacnmg Ta1 Chi classes , assisting in 
research and promotion of Tai Chi and Health Qigong, and organizing and managing the annual Tai 
Chi competition in New York City, New York. 
In tlie director ' s decision denying the petition, the director determined that the petitioner intended to 
work in the United States as a martial arts instructor rather than as a martial arts competitor. On 
appeal, the petitioner claims that she intends to practice martial arts in many forms in the United 
States. Specifically , the petitioner claimed: 
[M]y prior statement was construed as that I have no intention to continue competing 
as a martial art master, which is not true. Competing in the martial arts sports events , 
has always been my love and lifelong passion. . . . If my permanent resident was 
approved , I have full intention to continue my career in this path, out of my life time 
passion and also out of necessity, because to maintain my martial art[s] master status, 
continued presence in the major competitions and winning the top awards in these 
competitions are essential and indispensable. 
Furthermore, the petitioner's brief submitted on appeal "respectfully ask[s] that USCIS construe her 
area of expertise broadly as a Martial Arts Master, rather than solely a competitor who hopes to 
teach." 
While a martial arts competitor and a martial arts instructor certainly share knowledge of martial 
arts, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competition and coaching are not the 
same area of expertise. A Federal Court has upheld this interpretation. In Lee v. Ziglar, 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 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
!d. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. Consistent with section 203(b )(l)(A)(ii) 
of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) requires the petitioner to "continue work in the 
area of expertise. " The petitioner requests that her field of expertise include all aspects of martial 
arts, claiming that martial arts is distinct from other athletics in that the sport incorporates art and 
requires more than athletic ability to achieve the level of master. Even if the petitioner had 
established that martial arts constitute an art rather than a sport, and she has not, the arts also contain 
a similar distinction. For example, choreography is not within the area of expertise of every dancer. 
The petitioner had not competed for almost one year when she filed the petition and the record 
reflects that her primary employment in the United States would be as an instructor. The petitioner 
has experience as a coach dating back more than 10 years. Thus, she has had considerable 
opportunity to accrue acclaim as a coach. As such, she cannot rely on her pure I y athletic 
accomplishments. That said, some of the petitioner's evidence , such as her experience as a referee 
and her articles, are not exclusively athletic achievements. 
B. Translations 
The regulation at 8. C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires the petitioner to submit a full English translation 
that the translator certifies as complete and accurate for any document containing a foreign language. 
While the director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted certified translations, the record of 
proceeding, including the evidence submitted on appeal, reveals that the translator has certified the 
translations. Thus, the translations in the record have probative value. 
C. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized priz es or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's 
receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field 
of endeavor. " It is the petitioner 's burden to establish that the evidence meets every element of this 
criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate her receipt of prizes and awards, she must also 
demonstrate that those prizes and awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence 
in the field of endeavor, which, by definition, goes beyond the awarding entity. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted award certificates for the 
following: 
2 
On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed 
in this decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
1. Two first place finishes in the 42-Form Tai Chi Sword and Yang Stvle Tai Chi 
Ouan at the m , 111 
, China; 
2. Two first place finishes in the 42-Form Yang Style Taijiquan and Yang Styk_ 
Taijiquan at the 
m ., lf 
3. Two first place finishes in the 42 Style Taiji Sword Comoetition Routine and 
Yang Style Taiji Quan Competition Routine at the 
China in Ill 
China; and 
4. Two first place finishes in the Yang Style Taiji Quan and Taiji Weapons at the 
m , in Hong Kong. 
The petitioner also submitted letters from the 
and the 
verifying that the petitioner received the above-mentioned awards. The director concluded that the 
letters did not establish recognition of the awards beyond the issuing entities. On appeal, counsel 
asserts that the verification of the awards is rightly from the organizations that issued them and that 
the record contains additional evidence, the membership requirements and photographs, supporting 
the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. Counsel concludes that the director went beyond the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) in determining that the petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence that the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), however, requires not merely 
evidence of the petitioner's receipt of awards in a competition with participants from a national or 
international pool, but evidence that the awards themselves are nationally or internationally 
recognized. The decision of what constitutes a qualifying award is part of the administrative· 
process. Cf Rijal v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 
2011) affd, 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, the director did not apply novel substantive or 
evidentiary requirements that do not appear in the regulation by considering whether the petitioner 
had established the awards' national or international recognition in the field. 
Although the letters confirm that the petitioner received the awards and provide background 
information regarding the competitions such as the number of participants, the competition criteria, 
and the names of judges, the letters do not demonstrate that the awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field beyond the entities that issued the awards. The 
number of competitors is not determinative of the field's recognition of the awards at the national or 
international level. While the membership criteria confirm that one or more award in a national or 
international level Wushu competition is required for membership, this requirement does not 
establish that the field nationally or internationally recognizes the particular awards the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
won? The director did not question the petitioner's receipt of awards. At issue is the separate 
requirement in the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) that the awards be nationally or 
internationally recognized. The petitioner's membership in associations that require receipt of 
awards does not establish the awards' level of recognition. The petitioner did not submit any 
documentary evidence beyond the awarding entities to establish that any of the petitioner's awards 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence by the field of endeavor consistent with 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). For example, the petitioner did not 
submit evidence of media coverage of the competitions or similar independent evidence that might 
demonstrate recognition outside the awarding entity. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a photograph of a plaque reflecting that the she was awarded the 
at the 
in October 2011, in Washington, DC. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted a 
certificate recognizing the petitioner's "Outstanding Performance." However, the petitioner did not 
submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's award at the 
is a nationally or internationally recognized 
award for excellence in the field. 
Moreover, the petitioner submitted a certificate for the ' and photographs of 
five first place medals at the in October 2011. Neither the 
certificate nor the medals contain the petitioner's name, and the petitioner did not submit any 
supporting evidence to establish that she received the ' and the medals. 
Furthermore, the oetitioner did not submit anv documentary evidence establishing that awards 
received at the are nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for excellence m the field pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Further, the petitioner submitted a photograph of two trophies with medals reflecting that she 
received two first runner-up finishes for Tai Chi Chuan and Tai Chi Weapon at the First Tai Chi 
Competition in . However, the petitioner did not submit any 
documentary evidence demonstrating that her runner-up finishes are nationally or internationally 
recognized awards for excellence in the field consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
As discussed, the plain language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires that the petitioner's 
prizes or awards be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field. In this case, 
the petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards she documented as receiving are nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence as a martial arts competitor. Moreover, 
the petitioner neither claimed nor submitted any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence as a martial arts coach. 
According! y, the petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
3 While the director requested that the petitioner submit the relevant section of the associations' constitution or bylaws 
that discuss the membership criteria, the petitioner did not do so, and relies on letters. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which is classification 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. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on her membershio with the Chinese Wushu Association (CW A) and the 
In support of her claim, the petitioner submitted membership 
certificates and letters. a representative of the Department of Record at CW A, stated: 
The requirements for membership: receiving minimum three awards within top three 
places in a national or international wushu competition, recommended by a member 
and nominated by a director of the association; upon the review and approval of the 
admission committee of the association, the candidate becomes an official member of 
the [CWA]. 
Chairman of stated: 
The requirements for membership: receiving minimum one or more awards within 
top three places in a national or international Wushu competition, recommended by a 
member of the association; upon the review and approval of the admission committee 
of the association, the candidate becomes an official member of the 
Primary evidence of the membership requirements includes a copy of the relevant section of the 
association's constitution or bylaws. The director requested this evidence in the December 17, 2012 
request for evidence. The petitioner did not provide the requested information in response or 
document that such evidence is either not available or does not exist pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2). Even accepting the letters as evidence of the official membership requirements, they 
do not demonstrate that CW A or requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
Although CW A and limit membership to those who receive awards in national or 
international competitions and receive recommendations from members of their associations, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
membership criteria do not rise to the level of outstanding achievements consistent with the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). For instance, neither association restricts the 
awards to prestigious or respected national or international competitions that would be reflective of 
outstanding achievements. Furthermore, there is no indication that the admission committees are 
comprised of nationally or internationally recognized experts in their field as required by the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
As discussed, the plain language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires that the petitioner's 
memberships be with associations that require outstanding achievements. In this case, the petitioner 
did not demonstrate that her memberships with associations require outstanding achievements, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. Moreover, the petitioner neither claimed nor 
documented any memberships as a martial arts coach. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that she 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 allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence 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." A review ofthe record ofproceeding, 
however, does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing 
that she meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). As such, the 
director's decision for this criterion will be withdrawn for the reasons outlined below. 
The petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting her participation as a rf':fPXPP ::~t two 
competitions. Specifically, the petitioner submitted a verification letter from the ! _ 
Physical Education Bureau indicatin2: that the uetitioner worked as a referee from Mav 18-21. 2008. 
in the' 
Furthermore, the petitioner submitted a verification letter from the 
that the petitioner worked as a referee from June 20-24, 2008, in the "' 
indicating 
ln additwn, the petltwner 
submitted a certificate evidencing her "Level 
II Referee" status that was issued in December 2005. 
There is no evidence demonstrating that martial arts or Tai Chi referees actually judge competitors, 
such as assigning points, assessing technique or skill, or determining winners, rather than merely 
enforcing the rules, assessing violations and maintaining a sense of fair play. The petitioner did not 
submit official competition rules for either competition showing that serving as a "referee" in this 
instance equates to participating as a "judge" of the work of others consistent with the plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner did not demonstrate that she served as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought as 
required pursuant to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient{fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original 
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the 
field." Here, the evidence must rise to the level of original contributions "of major significance in 
the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU 
v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on her submission of five recommendation 
letters. The letters primarily discuss the petitioner's training background and skills as a martial arts 
competitor. For example, a practitioner of Yang Style Tai Chi, indicated that the 
petitioner "was the most talented and extraordinary disciple I ever had" and the petitioner's 
"extraordinary skills as a martial art[s] athlete have been proven in China and internationally." 
Likewise, Chairwoman of the stated that the petitioner "was 
the most talented and extraordinary athlete I ever had." Moreover, Vice Chairman of 
the Wu Shu Association, stated that he was "deeply impressed about her talent, and 
superb martial arts skills." In addition, President of the 
indicated that the petitioner "demonstrated her in-depth 
knowledge and understanding of this unique martial art and her superbly Kung Fu abilities." 
Finally, President of stated that he was "very impressed by 
her super martial arts skills and her mastering of Yang Style Tai Chi per performance." 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it is more difficult to demonstrate a qualifying contribution in 
the "arts" than in the sciences. The petitioner was an athlete and has a job offer as a coach rather 
than an artist or choreographer. Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions 
of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or 
customers. See Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6, 8 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 
2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
None of the letters indicated how the petitioner's skills are· original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Having a diverse skill set is not a contr.ibution of major significance in and 
of itself. Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that the petitioner has already used those 
unique skills to impact the field at a significant level in an original way. Furthermore, assuming the 
petitioner's skills are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department 
of Labor through the alien employment labor certification process. See Matter of New York State 
Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
Moreover, the letters summarized the petitioner's competitive awards that \Vere already discussed 
under the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Evidence relating 
to or even meeting the awards criterion is not presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets 
this criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory requirement that a 
petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
In addition to praising the petitioner's athletic skill, the letters from and 
made brief references to the petitioner's coaching experience. For instance, 
stated that the petitioner "has served as the Chief Coach of 
for over 10-years, trained thousands of students, to promote the popularity and growth of this 
traditional Chinese sports." In addition, stated that the petitioner is "an exceptionally 
successful Wushu coach." Finally, stated that the petitioner "has been teaching martial 
arts for more than 10 years. . 
. . Her students are more than thousands." Although the letters 
referenced the petitioner's coaching experience, they did not identify any of the petitioner's original 
contributions that could be considered of major significance in the field consistent with the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). There is no evidence distinguishing the 
petitioner's contributions as a martial arts coach from those of other martial arts coaches. Moreover, 
the petitioner did not submit any evidence from her employer supporting her teaching and coaching 
experience at the or at any other martial arts centers or clubs. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) (providing that evidence of experience shall be in the form of letter(s) 
from employer(s)). Without evidence demonstrating that her coaching or teaching has impacted the 
field in a significant way, the petitioner has not established that she has made original contributions 
of major significance in the field of martial arts coaching. 
The petitioner further asserts that requiring corroboration of letters is "both arbitrary and capricious, 
going beyond the statutory requirement of burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence." 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered above. 
users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. !d. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition 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 795-796; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) 
(noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content 
of the references' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner'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 that one would 
expect of a martial arts master who has made original contributions of major significance in the 
field. See also Visinscaia, ---F. Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 6571822, at *8 (concluding that USCIS' 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECiSION 
Page 12 
decision to give little weight to uncorroborated assertions from professionals in the field was not 
arbitrary and capricious). 
Although those familiar with the petitiOner generally describe her as "extraordinary," there is 
insufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has made original contributions 
of major significance. This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make original 
contributions, the regulatory criterion also requires those contributions to be of major significance. 
Vague, solicited letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how the p-etitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field is insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 
596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the USCIS' conclusion that the "letters 
from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient 
was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. In this matter, the letters 
considered above primarily contain bare assertions of the petitioner's status in the field without 
providing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance in the field. Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). Without supporting evidence, the petitioner has not met her burden of establishing her 
present contributions of major significance in the field. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work 
has been unusually influential, widely applied throughout her field, or has otherwise risen to the 
level of contributions of major significance, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. Specifically, 
the director questioned whether the petitioner's articles were scholarly and whether the publication 
in which they appeared was a professional or major trade publication or other major media. On 
appeal, the petitioner asserts that the petitioner submitted verification that her articles are "scholarly 
works written for those professional individuals and groups who study and develop 
Martial Arts." 
The petitioner further asserts that requiring scholarly articles to be peer-reviewed goes beyond the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The petitioner quotes Love Korean 
Church v. Chertojf, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2008) as the quote appears in Kazarian as follows: 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
If the agency intended to impose [peer citations] as a threshold requirement, we have 
little doubt that such records would have been included among the detailed 
substantive and evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5( (h)(3)(i)-(x) ]. 
596 F. 3d at 1121. 
Unlike the situation in Kazarian, the director in this case did not go beyond the plain language by 
requiring the petitioner to demonstrate the impact of her articles through peer citation. Rather, the 
director considered whether the journal that published the petitioner's articles subjected those 
articles to peer review before publication. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media." Thus, the director did not add any 
substantive or evidentiary requirement in considering the issue of peer-review as that issue· is directly 
relevant, although not determinative, to whether the petitioner's articles are "scholarly," as required 
by the plain language of the regulation. 
The petitioner did not provide a complete translation of her one-page articles. Thus, the petitioner 
did not demonstrate their scholarly nature through the content itself. The petitioner also did not 
provide the publication's official rules for authors to demonstrate the selection criteria for articles. 
Instead the petitioner relies on a letter from Chief of Archive at 
While asserts that the petitioner's article on hand 
folding in Tai Chi "received high praise among Kung [F]u scholars," he asserts that her second 
article "serves a good purpose of educating the public about the right way to practice T ai Chi and 
help promote the practice of Tai Chi." Thus, according to at least one of the 
petitioner's articles was an instructional article for the general public rather than a scholarly article 
that either was aimed at scholars or gathered attention from scholars. As the petitioner has not 
established that she authored scholarly articles (plural), she has not met the plain language 
requirements of this regulation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. As will be 
discussed, the documentary evidence submitted in support of this criterion is not sufficient to meet 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Therefore, as discussed below, 
the director's decision will be withdrawn. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[ e ]vidence of the 
display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." The petitioner is a 
martial arts master. When she is competing, she participates in athletic competitions; when she 
performs martial arts at a demonstration, she performs athletic moves before an audience. While the 
petitioner has discussed the artistic nature of the martial arts, the record does not establish that these 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
demonstrations are artlsttc exhibitions or showcases. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Cornrn'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comrn'r 1972)). The interpretation that this 
criterion is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has been upheld by a federal district court. 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an 
interpretation that performances by a performing artist do not fall under this criterion). 
The petitioner's competitions are directly relevant to the aforementioned awards criterion set forth at 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i); they have already been discussed separately within the 
context of that criterion. As such, the director's determination for this criterion is withdrawn. 
According! y, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, 
in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top 
of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
4 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 
2012); Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the judsdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DRS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved . 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.