dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 0-L-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 17, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a martial arts fighter, seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Petitioner filed motions to reopen and 
reconsider which the Director dismissed. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. In an affidavit 
accompanying the petition, the Petitioner asserts that he intends to compete in kickboxing and other 
forms of martial arts in the United States. 1 The Director determined that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires 
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. Although the Director found that the Petitioner had met the categories of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iv), the Director determined that the Petitioner had not met any of the 
remaining regulatory criteria or demonstrated a one-time achievement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. In the brief, the Petitioner asserts that 
he submitted documentation of a one-time achievement and that he also meets the categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (v). We agree with the Petitioner that the standard of 
proof in this matter is "preponderance of the evidence." The "preponderance of the evidence" 
standard, however, does not relieve the Petitioner from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements 
of the statute and regulations. Therefore, if the statute and regulations require specific evidence, the 
petitioner is required to submit that evidence. In most administrative immigration proceedings, the 
petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit 
sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). The truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. !d. at 376. In the present matter, the documentation 
submitted does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner meets at least 
1 
According to information in Part 3 of the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the Petitioner was last 
admitted to the United States on February 12, 2014, as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. 
Matter of 0-L-
three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and, therefore, that he satisfies the 
regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
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. 
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 st 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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The 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 achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then he must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (91h Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. 
USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), 
aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) 
(finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 0-L-
at 376 (USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality ofthe evidence, to determine whether the fact to be 
proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. One-time Achievement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that a petitioner may submit evidence of a one-time 
achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
his for in the middleweight division at the 
and 
his and certificate for in the 
; his . and certificate issued by the 
the ' category at the 
and his medal 
and certificate for first place in the 
internationally recognized awards. 
category at the 
for m 
contact category at the 
are maJor, 
With regard to the Petitioner's in the middleweight division at the 
the Petitioner 
initially submitted a participation certificate from the event signed by 
and a photograph of himself with his medal and 
certificate, the Petitioner's identification card from the event, tournament registration information 
from the and a list of the adult male tournament pmiicipants organized by weight class. 
The aforementioned documentation, however, does not demonstrate international import of the 
tournament or establish that medals from the competition are recognized beyond the participants and 
organizers of the event at a level commensurate with major, internationaHy recognized awards. 
According to the list of tournament pmiicipants, only other contenders fought in the 
in which the Petitioner competed. The 
Petitioner has not shown that placing among a small pool of amateur division contenders is 
indicative of international recognition in the martial arts. For example, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that the contenders in the Petitioner's division underwent a rigorous international 
selection process in order to compete in the tournament. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted information about 
the printed from its website and Wikipedia, but the online material does not demonstrate the 
international recognition of the 
_ _ or establish the significance of its awards. In addition, the Petitioner 
provided infmmation about founders from Wikipedia, the 
website, With regard to information from 
Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited 
internet site. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael j\.fukcL'\'ey, 540 F.3d 909 (8111 Cir. 2008). Wikipedia is 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 0-L-
subject to a disclaimer explaining that the website "allows anyone with an Internet connection to 
alter its content" and that its content has not "necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise 
required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . 
. . Wikipedia cannot 
guarantee the validity of the information found here." The disclaimer further explains that the 
"content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone 
whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields." See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, accessed on October 23, 2015, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. Accordingly, we will not assign weight to information 
for which Wikipediais the source. Regardless, the information about 
activities does not demonstrate that awards from the and 
are major, internationally recognized awards. 
The Petitioner also provided hotel information from the website for the 
reflecting that the 
organizers reserved a block of hotel rooms at the m 
Florida. While the Petitioner submitted information about the reputation of the 
its reputation as a desirable vacation destination does not automatically 
demonstrate that every sporting event it hosts is internationally recognized. The information 
provided states that the fighters would compete in the hotel's _ but there is no 
evidence showing that the Petitioner's fight attracted a substantial audience, received a significant 
amount of international media coverage, or was otherwise internationally recognized. In addition, 
although the Petitioner provided the "Pro" and "Amateur" title requirements from the 
website, there is no indication that he fought in a continental, intercontinental, or world title bout at 
the 
Furthermore, even if the Petitioner had competed in an title bout, there is no evidence 
demonstrating 
that such titles are major, internationally recognized awards. 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this visa category to "that small percentage of individuals who 
have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a 
one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards 
qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. Congress' example of a one-time 
achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The regulation is 
consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, 
internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the 
example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality 
of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash prize.· Although an 
intemationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting 
all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award must be 
internationally recognized in the petitioner's field as one of the top awards in that field. In the present 
matter, the submitted evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's in the 
middleweight division at the 
is a major, internationally recognized award. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofO-L-
With respect to the Petitioner's 
category at the 
medal and certificate issued.by the 
category at the 
and ce1iificate for first place in the 
and certificate for in the 
his 
and his 
the Petitioner did not provide any 
supporting documentary evidence demonstrating that his are 
major, internationally recognized awards. Although the Petitioner submitted a list of the 
European Members" from the Europe website, there is no information about the Petitioner's 
award from the Regarding the Petitioner's 
assertion that the aforementioned awards are major and internationally recognized, users need not 
rely on unsubstantiatedstatements. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated a qualifying one-time achievement pursuant 
to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the .field of endeavor. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. For the reasons 
outlined below, a review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence showing that he meets the plain language of this criterion and the 
Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. The AAO conducts appellate review on a 
de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
The evidence pertaining to the Petitioner's 
at the 
and celiificate for first place in the 
issued by the for 
for in the 
in the 
in the middleweight division 
his 
: his 
and his 
at the 
and cetiificate 
at the 
and celiificate 
has already been discussed in part A above. As 
previously mentioned, there is no documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner's awards are 
internationally recognized in the martial arts field. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the aforementioned medals and certit1cates are nationally recognized awards for excellence in 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence the Petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the Petitioner asserts 
that he meets or for which the Petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofO-L-
the field of endeavor. A kickboxing competitiOn may be open to athletes from throughout a 
particular country or countries, but this factor alone is not adequate to establish that an award or 
prize from that competition is nationally or internationally recognized. The burden is on the 
petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and achievement associated with his medals and 
award certificates. The submitted documentation does not establish that the Petitioner's awards had 
a substantial level of recognition beyond the context of the events where they were presented and 
were therefore commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted the following: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
(b)(6)
Matter of 0-L-
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 
With regard to the aforementioned awards, the Petitioner did not submit evidence demonstrating their 
national or international recognition in the martial arts field. The plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this 
criterion. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's diploma and first, 
second, and third place certificates were recognized at a level commensurate with nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the eligibility for this criterion. On 
motion and appeal, the Petitioner did not contest the Director's findings for this criterion or offer 
additional arguments . When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is 
abandoned. Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. 
Roark, No. 09--CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1 , *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2011) (plaintiff's claims 
(b)(6)
Matter ofO-L-
abandoned when not raised on appeal). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he meets 
this regulatory 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. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a July 2013 Russian language article 
entitled that he asserts was on the website of the The 
submitted article, however, does not include the uniform resource locator (URL) or internet address 
showing that it was printed from the website. 3 The lack of a URL for the 
article diminishes the reliability of the Petitioner's evidence. Although page four of the Petitioner's 
November 3, 2014, letter responding to the RFE and an accompanying "Table of Exhibits" both 
identify the article's URL as we were unable 
to access the article using the URL provided by the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the article, the 
webpage claims 3,025,496 "total number of page views," but it has not been shown whether this 
statistic applies to the Petitioner's article, the blog, or the website since its 
inception. Regardless, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. 
CV 06 5105 SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on 
self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the publication's status as major media). There 
is no objective documentary evidence showing that the number of visitors to 
website or its blog elevates the newspaper to a form of major media relative to other online news 
sources. 
The Petitioner initially submitted a digital video disc (DVD) compilation showing video from his 
fights, martial arts practices, stunt demonstrations, appearances on game shows and talent shows, 
and television interviews. In addition, the Petitioner provided various photographs of himself 
participating in the talent and game show contests. On appeal, the Petitioner mentions 
that he was 
interviewed on American, Ukrainian, and Russian television shows. The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires "published material about the alien" including "the title, date and author 
of the material." Television show interviews; fight, stunt, and practice videos; and game show and 
talent show appearances do not meet these requirements. In addition, the Petitioner did not submit 
any transcripts for the television programs demonstrating that the interviews were about him and 
relating to his work. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide certified English language 
translations of the interviews conducted in the Russian and Ukrainian languages as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Lastly, there is no documentary evidence of the viewership 
statistics for the specific television programs on which the interviews were broadcast. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
3 The top of the Russian language webpage bears the words "Next Blog," "Create Blog," and ''Sign ln." 
(b)(6)
Matter of 0-L-
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 spec(fication for which classification is 
sought. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. For the reasons 
outlined below, a review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of this criterion and 
the Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. Again, we conduct appellate review on 
a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145. 
Initially, the Petitioner did not assert eligibility for this regulatory criterion. In response to the 
Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted his certificate from the 
that was issued on April 6, 2010. On the right side of the certificate, 
the dates when the Petitioner received certification for judging categories 1, 2, and 3 were left blank. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided his 
The "Referee Qualification " section of the reflects that the Petitioner 
attained category III referee status on 201 0; category II referee status on 
2011; category I referee status on . 2012; and national category referee status in 
2012. Although the Petitioner received his "Sport Judge" certificate and earned 
"Referee Qualification" certifications at various levels in his there is no documentary 
evidence of his participation as a judge of the work of others after earning his qualifications. While 
the Petitioner submitted five "referee" photos showing him seated or standing at unspecified events, 
there is no indication that he was judging the work of others. Furthermore , although the Petitioner 
provided the July 2013 article in which mentions that he was a participant and an 
"honored guest" at the the article did not state that he 
served as a 
judge at the tournament. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE also included an October 2014 affidavit in which he asserts that 
he has "acted as a referee in kick boxing, karate, and Tae K won Do" in at least 15 competitions in the 
martial arts. In addition, the Petitioner states that in some instances he was not issued referee 
identification (ID) and that in other instances he "did not preserve [his] official referee ID's." With 
regard to the Petitioner ' s affidavit in which he asserts that he refereed at least 15 martial arts 
competitions , USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated statements. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 
15. Without corroborating evidence from the competitions ' organizers, the Petitioner has not 
established that he participated as a judge at the competitions. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the petitioner's "participation, either 
individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field." The 
submitted documentation does not demonstrate the Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work 
of others in the martial arts field. With regard to serving as a referee, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that a referee actually judges the competitors' work, rather than just ensuring that rules 
are followed and that the kickboxing match is held in a safe and fair manner. The record lacks official 
competition rules from the appropriate governing body showing that serving as a referee equates to 
participating as "a judge" of the work of others in the same or an allied field. Without evidence 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter ofO-L-
showing that the Petitioner has participated, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in his sport, the Director's finding that the Petitioner's evidence meets this regulatory criterion 
is withdrawn. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established 
that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted that his "significant contributions to the 
martial arts" include development of "various techniques on how to achieve flexibility for a split," 
"effective techniques of punching and kicking," and exercise methods for getting "six-pack 
abdominal muscles." The Petitioner submitted a printout from his website at 
and photocopies of his DVDs entitled 
and In - - - -
addition, the Petitioner provided letters of support from fighters and martial arts coaches. 
In his initial letter, , President of 
New York, stated: "[The Petitioner], under my supervisiOn, won three prest1g10us 
tournaments . . . . [The Petitioner] assisted me in preparing athletes and competitions, and as an 
actor and film director, he recorded several educational films, which helped train athletes of 
... " In response to the Director's RFE, asserted: 
I started to implement his techniques in my training process in 2010, and I saw almost 
immediate positive effect on my students' achievements. Actually [the Petitioner's] 
training methods significantly contributed to my students' success. Because of [the 
Petitioner's] innovative training techniques, my students have been able to develop at 
a faster pace. My students who used [the Petitioner's] training techniques enjoyed 
significant improvement in their agility, speed, as well as punching and kicking 
power. 
indicated that the Petitioner's techniques have improved the performance of students at 
the center where the Petitioner trains for tournaments and assists in coaching other 
students, but there is no documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner's techniques have affected 
the field in a substantial way or otherwise constitute original contributions of major significance in 
the martial arts. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
"[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions" that are "of major significance in the field." Here, the evidence must be reviewed to 
see whether it rises to the level of original athletic 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 
inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nct Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
, 
a former professional boxer from Russia, stated that he met the Petitioner at the 
asserted that the Petitioner is "a fighter with extraordinary technique and 
skills" and "one of the few elite martial arts athletes of his generation," but did not mention any of 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of 0-L-
the Petitioner's original techniques for training or martial arts fighting, or explain their significance 
in the field. 
Branch Chief, Ukraine, stated (note: 
errors in the original text have not been changed): 
[The Petitioner] show big support in the development of martial arts in the Ukraine. 
For more than ten years the fruitful cooperation with [the Petitioner] we have held a 
number of events and training seminars in kickboxing and jiu jitsu. I noted his 
extraordinary and special ability in the work of [the Petitioner] and of teaching 
martial arts. His talent in search of new opportunities to develop and improve their 
own level of professionalism and improve level of internal self-fulfillment and 
motivation among the students. 
asserted that the Petitioner has supported the development of martial arts in Ukraine 
through involvement in events and training seminars and through his work as a teacher, but does not 
provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work was of major significance in the field. 
Furthermore, although and both mentioned the Petitioner's "extraordinary" 
talent as a fighter and teacher, they did not explain how the Petitioner's original training techniques 
have influenced the field at a level indicative of athletic contributions of major significance in the 
martial arts 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, No. 95 CIV. 10729, 
1997 WL 188942, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). It is not enough to be a talented martial artist or 
teacher and to have others attest to that talent. An individual must have demonstrably impacted his 
field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. 
President of the and Representative of the 
~ , in stated that he taught and tested the Petitioner in jiu-jitsu and 
awarded him second and third dan rankings. In addition, asserted that he uses "videos of 
[the Petitioner's] techniques to teach [his] students jiu-jitsu." While indicated that he has 
utilized the videos of the Petitioner's techniques to teach students at his sport club, there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's techniques have affected jiu-jitsu practices 
at a level commensurate 
with original contributions of major significance in the field. 
President and Coach of 
York, stated: 
[W]hen I implement some of [the Petitioner's] developments, such as the techniques 
for effective punches and, especially, [the Petitioner's] technique for developing 
flexibility for doing splits, I found those techniques were extremely effective and 
gave amazing results. My students, who used those techniques, improved 
dramatically and much faster than their peers in their groups. I was convinced that 
[the Petitioner's] methods was really effective and offered professional athletes, who 
11 
New 
(b)(6)
Matter of 0-L-
trained in our Center, to use [the Petitioner's] techniques in their exercises. I have 
received excellent feedbacks from all athlete who ever tried those technique[s]. 
asserted that he has implemented some of the Petitioner's techniques at his gym in 
to improve students' punching effectiveness and their flexibility for doing splits, but there 
is no evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's methods have had a substantial impact on martial 
arts training practices throughout the field, or that they otherwise constitute original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
described himself as "a professional boxer currently residing and training in 
New York." asserted that during his training sessions he tried some of the Petitioner's 
techniques and that "they were really great." further stated: "[The Petitioner's] 
flexibility and hand blows speed exercises helped me to such extent that even my trainer was 
impressed. After that we started to use [the Petitioner's] tutorials for all our exercises with excellent 
results." While indicated that he has utilized the Petitioner's techniques, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner's tutorials have been utilized at a level 
commensurate with contributions of major significance in the field ofboxing or the martial arts. 
The Petitioner submitted letters oflimited probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. In addition, uncorroborated 
assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35; Matter o.fCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 
I&N Dec. at 795 (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to accept or 
may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionable"). 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 petitioner's eligibility. !d. See also Matter o.f 
V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be 
evidence as to "fact"). 
On motion, the Petitioner submitted two November 2014 letters from 
Ukraine, discussing sales ofthe Petitioner's DVD tutorials, but the author 
of the letters was not identified. With regard to the Petitioner's DVDs entitled 
and the first letter indicated: 
"Since 2011 to November 19, 2014-97470 items of video tutorials were sold." The second letter 
from stated that the Petitioner's DVDs are "consigned all over the world - for the 
Russian speaking community," that two additional video tutorials from the Petitioner are being 
readied for consignment, and that the Petitioner's "video courses are getting popular every day in the 
world of sport and martial arts." Not every DVD that offers exercise or martial arts instruction rises 
to the level of an original athletic contribution of major significance in the field. The submitted 
evidence does not show that the techniques taught in the Petitioner's DVDs have been unusually 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of 0-L-
influential, have substantially impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance in the martial arts. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a sales graph showing the "quantity of the sales from 2013 to 
2014." The Petitioner also provided an "Audit Report" from 
and Ukraine, affirming that "[s]ince 2011 to November 19, 2014- 97470 
items of video tutorials were sold." Lastly, the Petitioner submitted a November 2014 letter from 
Ukraine, stating that his studio has 
produced six of the Petitioner's video tutorials since 201 L While the sales and production 
information for the Petitioner's instructional DVDs indicates that he has found a commercial market 
for his training techniques, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his DVDs' level of distribution 
and influence on martial arts practitioners constitute original athletic contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
As previously mentioned, the Petitioner submitted a diploma from the organizers of the 
' (20 13) thanking the Petitioner for his "enormous contribution 
into the sport development in Ukraine." The Petitioner's diploma has already been addressed under 
the awards criterion 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. Because separate 
criteria exist for awards and original contributions of major significance in the field, USCIS does not 
view the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory 
requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Regardless, the Petitioner has not 
shown that his diploma from the tournament is indicative of an original contribution of major 
significance in the martial arts. For example, the diploma does not identify any of the Petitioner's 
original athletic contributions and there is no evidence showing their major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner stated that he has attracted "thousands of followers" on social media such as 
Facebook.com, and YouTube.com. For example, the Petitioner asserted that he "has 
about 900 followers on and about 1,000 followers on Facebook.com." The 
Petitioner submitted printouts of messages sent to him from just six followers. With 
regard to the Petitioner's assertion that he has about 900 followers on and about 1,000 
on Facebook, 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 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a webpage reflecting that he has 28,171 subscribers to his 
Y ouTube.com channel and asserts that the volume of subscribers "shows significant public interest 
in [the Petitioner's] martial arts achievements." There is no evidence indicating the number of the 
Petitioner's Y ouTube.com subscribers who are martial arts practitioners or who have utilized his 
online content as instructional material. For comparison, the Petitioner submitted webpages 
indicating that (actor) has 26,354 subscribers, (actor) has 386 subscribers, 
(kickboxer) has 2,061 subscribers, and (actor) has 31,647 subscribers. 
While having subscribers on Y ouTube shows that the Petitioner has attracted followers of his online 
13 
Matter of 0-L-
videos, there is no documentary evidence showing that the videos posted by the Petitioner have 
affected the martial arts at a level indicative of contributions of major significance in the field. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The Director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the Petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The issue, therefore, is considered abandoned. Sepulveda, 
401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
c. ·summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, a one-time achievement or evidence that satisfies three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. 
D. Comparable Evidence 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" if the 
ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated why the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) were not readily applicable to his occupation. On motion and appeal, the Petitioner did 
not contest the Director's finding or offer additional arguments. The issue, therefore, is considered 
abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885. at *9. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the Petitioner 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 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. As the Petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
14 
Matter of 0-L-
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.4 
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, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofO-L-, ID# 14347 (AAO Nov. 17, 2015) 
4 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't oj'Justice, 381 F.3d at 
145. In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office that 
made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation 
Number 0150.1 (effective March l, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(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). 
15