dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
- 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
b& 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 MAR 2 7 2009 
SRC 08 160 51641 
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. 8 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided 
your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
3 103S(a)(l)(i). 
A&!~I. 
John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center. The petition 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. § 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Counsel contends on appeal that the director violated 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(8) by failing to request 
further evidence before denying the petition. The cited regulation requires the director to request 
additional evidence in instances "where there is no evidence of ineligibility, and initial evidence 
or eligibility information is missing." Id. The director is not required to issue a request for 
further information in every potentially deniable case. If the director determines that the initial 
evidence supports a decision of denial, the cited regulation does not require solicitation of further 
documentation. The director did not deny the petition based on insufficient evidence of 
eligibility. 
Furthermore, even if the director had committed a procedural error by failing to solicit further 
evidence, it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. The 
petitioner has in fact supplemented the record on appeal, and therefore it would serve no usefbl 
purpose to remand the case simply to afford the petitioner the opportunity to supplement the 
record with new evidence. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Page 3 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to 
establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her 
field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria 
will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on April 21, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a martial arts coach. The statute and regulations require that the petitioner 
seek to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5@)(5). Such evidence may include letter(s) 
from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he intends to continue his work in the 
United States. The petitioner submitted no letters from prospective employers, contracts, or 
other information detailing his plans in the United States as a coach. The petitioner did, 
however, submit a document that purportedly is a "certificate of coach" from the Qingdao 
Wushu Association and a "letter of appointment" indicating that the petitioner was appointed as 
a coach for imitation Mantis boxing at the Oriental Wushu School in 1998. The translation 
accompanying the "certificate of coach" does not identify the petitioner as the person to whom 
the certificate was issued. Moreover, the translation accompanying both of these documents fails 
to comply with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3) as it failed to identify the translator 
and did not contain a certification that the translation was complete and accurate, and that the 
translator is competent to translate from Chinese to English. The petitioner here has provided 
insufficient evidence to establish that he will pursue martial arts as a coach in the United States. 
Moreover, although the petitioner appears to have had a moderately successful career as a 
competitive martial artist through 2006 and continued to "participate" in martial arts through August 
2007, because it is his intent to come to the U.S. as a coach rather than a competitor, he cannot rely 
solely on prior success as a competitive athlete to meet this classification. While a competitive 
martial artist and an instructor certainly share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on a different set 
of basic skills. Thus, competing and instructing are not the same area of expertise.' 
1 
 While not binding precedent, we note that the reasoning contained in Lee v. INS., 237 
F.Supp.2d 914,918 (N.D.II1.2002), supports this interpretation: 
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 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 instruct. 
Page 4 
Although a nexus exists between competing in and coaching or instructing a given sport, to 
assume that every athlete's area of expertise includes instruction would be too speculative. To 
resolve this issue, in a case where an alien has clearly achieved national or international acclaim 
as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching or instruction at a national or 
international level, we can consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern 
of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that we can conclude that instruction is 
within the petitioner's area of expertise. Specifically, in such a case we will consider the level at 
which the alien acts as a coach. A coach who has established a successful history of instructing 
athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible claim; an instructor of novices 
does not. Thus, we will examine whether the petitioner has demonstrated his extraordinary 
ability as a coach or as an athlete. If the petitioner has demonstrated extraordinary ability as an 
athlete, we will consider the level at which he has successfully coached. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recojpized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation 
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the 
sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, 
cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates 
to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a 
specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not 
be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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." 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following   rite ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted copies of what he claims are the following awards or prizes: 
1. Certificates of award from the Chinese Wushu Association indicatin that at the National 
Traditional Wushu Grand Competition, the petitioner won. in the men's 
Chiiquh (Cha boxing) AA, the men's Jianshu (Double-Edged Swordmanship [sic]) C, 
the men's Tanglang ~uan (Mantis Boxing) C on August 8,2004, and on AU~G~ 9,2004, 
he won 
 in the men's Cha Qiang (Cha Spear) AA. 
2 
 Only those criteria claimed to be applicable by the petitioner will be discussed, because neither the 
petitioner nor counsel claim to meet any of the remaining criteria and the record contains no evidence 
relevant to those criteria. 
Page 5 
2. Certificates of award from the Shandong Wushu Sports Association dated September 3, 
2004, indicating that the petitioner won in the Men's Other Boxing C, the 
Men's Other Weapons C, and Mantis Boxing C at the 2004 Wu Xie cup at the traditional 
Wushu Tournament in Shandong, China. 
3. Certificates indicating a in the Mantis Sword, Ditang/Xiangxing, and 
sparringlpush hands, and 
 in "other weapons" categories at the Hong Kong 
International Wushu Festival held in Hong Kong from March 11 to March 13, 2005. 
Another document indicates a second place finish in the "other weapons" category. The 
names of the winners are in Chinese and the petitioner failed to submit translations of the 
documents. 
4. Certificates of award from the Oinrrdao Wushu Association indicating that the petitioner 
." - 
n the men's Shaolin Boxing A, the men's Tanglang Boxing A, and the 
men's Tanglang Sword A at the 2005 Qingdao International Mantis Boxing Competition. 
5. Certificates indicating a 
 in the sparring, Xiangxing and the Chen Style 
Taiji Boxing categories at the 2006 Hong Kong Wushu International Festival. The name 
of the winner is in Chinese and the petitioner did not submit a translation of the 
document. One certificate indicates a "Group Six First Place" award and another 
indicates it was for placing second; however the categories on the certificates are unclear. 
The winner's name on both of these certificates is in Chinese and the petitioner failed to 
submit certified translations of the documents. 
6. Certificates of award indicating that the petitioner won 
 in the men's Shuang 
Dao (double broadsword) M5, the men's Pu Dao Jin Qiang Pu Sword Jin Qiang, and the 
men's Xiangxing Quan (imitation boxing) M5 at the 2006 Macau International 
Traditional Wushu Invitational Competition 
7. Certificates indicating a first place finish in the men's Ditang/Xiangxing, the men's 
Shaolin boxing, the men's face to face/sword and spear, and the men's "other weapon 
and long weapon" categories in the "Reunification Cup" at the at the 5th Hong Kong 
Wushu International Festival. Although the latter three documents contain a photograph, 
presumably of the petitioner, the winner's name on these certificates is in Chinese and the 
petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the documents. The date of the festival 
is not shown. 
8. A certificate of appreciation from the United States Traditional Kung Fu Wushu 
Federation. The certificate, dated August 11, 2007, recognizes the petitioner's "support 
and participation in the 2nd International Traditional Kung Fu Wushu Tournament & 
Masters Exhibition." 
9. Three undated certificates indicating that the petitioner had "participated in the 2" 
International Traditional Kung Fu Wushu Tournament & Masters Exhibition." The 
Page 6 
certificates indicated that the petitioner won first place; however, any specific category is 
in Chinese and the petitioner provided no certified translation of any of the documents. 
We note that with the exception of the certificates outlined at numbers 8 and 9, none of the above 
documentation is accompanied by a translation as required by 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.2(b)(3). Specifically, the translations did not identify the translator and were not 
accompanied by a certification that the translations were complete and accurate, and that the 
translator is competent to translate from Chinese into English. In fact, several of the documents 
are partially in Chinese and the petitioner failed to provide any translations of those documents. 
Accordingly, none of these documents are of probative value in this proceeding. 
In denying the petition, the director determined that the record did not contain an explanation of 
the significance of the awards received by the petitioner. On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
copy of a December 29, 2008 letter from 
 the executive secretary of the organizing 
committee of the Hong Kong Wushu International Festival. Mr. confirmed the petitioner's 
awards in the variousfestivals and stated that the festival began in 2003 and "ha~-~ained the 
recognition and support from the fellow Wushu critics all over the world." He further stated that 
the festival has nearly 20,000 participants from more than 20 countries and regions, and that the 
festival invites "internationally well-known referees and Wushu elites to serve as judges of the 
competitions." 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of a December 20, 2008 letter from , who 
identified himself as the secretary-General of the Qingdao Wushu Association, a senior member 
of the Chinese Wushu Association and a judge of the Hong Kong International Wushu Festival 
and stated that he is one of the authorities in Wushu in China. ~r.m enumerated the awards 
received by the petitioner as shown by the certificates discussed above. Mr. stated that the 
2004 National Traditional Wushu Exchange Grand Competition involved 632 participants "from 
28 provinces, various self governed municipalities and autonomous regions throughout China." 
He also stated that he has served as the "official judge of the Hong Kong International Wushu 
Festival on a frequent and consecutive basis." He stated that the competition draws participants 
from throughout China and 20 other nations and that: 
[A111 of those competitions are very influential and significant within the 
International Wushu community. The fact that [the petitioner] won such a high 
number of awards in these competitions reflects on his extraordinary skill and 
demonstrates that his ability is either higher than or on equal level with the 
nation's top standard. Secondly, in each of those events, [the petitioner] competed 
his way through the hierarchy of competition matches and ultimately won the 
gold medal in the final. Fourthly, these competitions are all national and 
international scaled competitions. Particularly, the Hong Kong International 
Wushu Festival is one of the largest Wushu event[s] in the world, and being able 
to compete in this event is the wishes of tens of thousands Wushu athletes. 
Finally, only outstanding Wushu athletes may qualify to compete in this event. 
In a separate undated letter written on behalf of the Organizing Committee of the Hong Kong 
Wushu ~estival, certified that the petitioner articipated in the 2005, 2006 and 2007 
festivals and won gold medals in several events. Mr. & stated that the 2005 festival consisted 
of more than 1,000 competitors from 27 countries and regions and was covered by "30 media 
companies with more than 50 journalists fiom Hong Kong, Mainland China and other countries 
and regions." He Mher stated that the 2006 festival featured over 1,500 competitors fiom more 
than 20 countries and regions and was covered by several television networks "and more than 30 
local and international media companies," and that the 2007 festival enjoyed similar media 
attention. 
Nonetheless, the petitioner submitted no documentation, such as news media coverage or similar 
evidence, to corroborate any of the statements in the letters of and. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficien or purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). No other 
documentation in the record establishes that first place finishes at the Hong Kong Wushu 
International Festival are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards of excellence 
in the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
who identifies himself as a Grandmaster and a Supermaster, in a December 18,2008 
letter, also enumerated the petitioner's awards, and stated that the "competitions are significant 
because they all have gained recognitions by wushu experts and organizations throughout the 
world." Mr. stated that he was "more directly involved" in the "organization and judging" 
of the Second International Kung Fu/Wushu Tournament & Masters Exhibition in 2007. He 
further stated: 
First, the competitions at the International Kung Fu/Wushu Tournament & 
Masters Exhibition are among the most important competitions of their kind in the 
world. The Tournament is well recognized among wushu masters, sifus, coaches, 
schools, and students throughout the nation and abroad. The Tournament is the 
second largest and most important event in wushu competitions in the United 
States. It is held only every three years. Winning an award at this competition has 
been the dream of tens of hundreds of outstanding wushu masters throughout the 
world. It is increasingly gaining popularity and recognition both in the United 
States and elsewhere. 
indicates that the tournament is "well recognized" and that winning an award at the 
competition "has been the dream of tens of hundreds." However, we note that the 2007 
competition was only the second one held. Further, stated that the competition was 
"increasingly gaining popularity and recognition" in the United States and elsewhere. Neither of 
these facts is indicative that an award at the tournament is nationally or internationally 
recognized as an award of excellence in the field. The record contains no other documentary 
evidence to corroborate the significance of the tournament or its awards. 
Page 8 
More importantly, even if the petitioner were able to demonstrate hs receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized awards as a martial arts competitor, whch he has not, as previously 
indicated, the petitioner does not seek classification as a competitor but rather as a coach. The 
record, however, contains no evidence that the petitioner has received awards as a coach. mle we 
may consider the level at which the petitioner has acted as an instructor as evidence that he has 
sustained acclaim, in this instance, the petitioner has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate 
that he has coached students at the national or international level or that any of his students have 
won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards such that the petitioner's prior success 
as a competitive martial artist can be said to have been sustained through his success as a coach. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish his receipt of lesser national or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards in his field as a martial arts competitor and as a coach. 
The petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion either as a competitor or as a coach. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jeld 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. 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the 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 work 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. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted copies of documents indicating they were issued by 
the Chinese Wushu Association, the Qingdao Wushu Association, and the China Qingdao Shi 
Be1 District Wu Shu Association. Except for the names of the associations, the documents are in 
Chinese, and were not accompanied by English translations as required by 8 C.F.R. 
4 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner submitted no other documentation regarding the associations and 
their membership requirements. The director determined that the petitioner had not submitted 
evidence of this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director "erred in failing to recognize, or at least failing to 
request, the evidence, inter alia, that the Petitioner is a member of the prestigious Chinese Wushu 
Association . . . which requires outstanding achievements of its members." The petitioner 
submits a "letter of certification" purportedly fi-om the Vice president,- 
-, in which he outlined the membership requirements of the Chinese 
Wushu Association. The translation accompanying the document, however, does not meet the 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103,2(b)(3) in that it does not identify the translator, 
it does not contain a certification that the translations are complete and accurate, and that the 
translator is competent to translate from Chinese into English. Accordingly, the document is of 
no probative value. Further, even if it the proper translations were submitted, it appears that 
provided only a synopsis of the membership requirements and the articles of 
organization, rather than the entire document. 
 In addition, we note that the articles of 
organization, as outlined in the letter, provide at least eight different ways of becoming a 
member, including teaching and coaching at an intermediate level or above, Wushu practitioners 
at Level Dan or higher, national and international judges and level 1 judges "who have made 
significant contributions," Samurai athletes who have reached the Wuying or first class level, 
and others "who have made outstanding contributions to the course of marshal [sic] arts." Thus, 
this document, even if probative, does not establish that the Chinese Wushu Association requires 
outstanding achievements of its members as judged by national or international experts. 
[The China Wushu Association (CWA)] only accepts accomplished individuals 
working in the field of marshal [sic] arts. In judging whether an applicant has 
outstanding accomplishments, the association looks at factors such as the number 
and significance of awards received in wushu competitions, and/or whether the 
applicant has served as a judge of the work of others. 
As noted above, however, the petitioner submitted no documentation to support these statements 
by regarding the requirements to become a member of CWA. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSofici, 22 I&N Dec at 165.-~urther, the statements appear 
inconsistent with those allegedly made by regarding eligibility for membership in 
the association. 
The petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion either as a competitor or as a coach. 
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 allied3eld of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted a copy of a June 2007 letter addressed to 
"MasterlSiW inviting the individual to participate as a judge/official at the Second International 
Traditional Kung fu Wushu Tournament & Master Exhibition. However, without evidence to 
demonstrate that the petitioner actually served as a judge at this tournament, the petitioner has 
failed to establish that this invitation to participate is sufficient to meet this criterion. The 
petitioner's name has been added to the letter by hand, and it is unclear who added it or when. 
Therefore, it is not clear that the letter was addressed to or intended for the petitioner. The 
petitioner also submitted copies of documents indicating that he was appointed as a competition 
judge at the national level and a level I11 social sports (public sports) evaluator in China. The 
translations accompanying the documents do not identify the translator, the translator did not 
certify that the translations were complete and accurate, and did not certifl that he or she is 
competent to translate fiom the Chinese into English, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). The 
Page 10 
petitioner submitted no documentation with the petition that he had actually participated as a 
judge or evaluator. 
In his December 20, 2008 letter submitted on appeal, 
 stated that the petitioner 
serves as a national level three judge certified by the Chinese Wushu Association and has judged 
and assessed the performances of Wushu athletes "in a number of national Wushu competitions." 
further-stated, "Only an outstanding Wushu talent such as [the petitioner] co;ld qualify 
to be invited by the national or international Wushu associations to serve as a judge of 
performances of others." 
In his December 18,2008 letter, 
 stated: 
[The petitioner] has been certified by the State Administration of Sports in China 
as a national Level I11 competition Judge because of his outstanding 
achievements. 
Based on [his] remarkable achievements and recommendations by other wushu 
experts, the Organizing Committee of The Second International Traditional Kung 
FdWushu Tournament & Masters Exhibition selected [the petitioner] to serve as 
one of the judges at the Tournament. He performed the role of judging the 
quarter-finals, semi-finals and final in the competition events of Tanglang Boxing, 
Imitation Boxing and Sparrig [sic]. 
The significance of the 2007 Tournament has been stated . . . I wish to emphasize 
that it is because of [his] sustained national and international acclaim in wushu 
that led to his selection as a judge at this internationally significant tournament. 
The evidence indicates that the petitioner was certified to act as a judge by the State 
Administration of Sports. The petitioner submitted no documentation from the State 
Administration of Sports that outlines the criteria for certification as judge or evaluator by the 
State. Additionally, other than the statement by that the petitioner "judged and 
assessed the performances of Wushu athletes "in a number of national Wushu competitions," the 
petitioner submitted no documentation to confirm that he participated as a judge 
 to the 
State's certification. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion either as a competitor or as a 
coach. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzJicance in thefield. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted copies of documents that purport to be an April 14, 
2005 "Certificate of Honor" from the Qingdao University of Technology, recognizing the 
petitioner's "special contribution to 'The Spirit of Chinese Wushu' - The 2nd Wushu 
Demonstration and Competition of Qingdao University of Technology . . . ." The translation 
does not identie what the petitioner "demonstrated" or the nature of his "special contribution." 
Further, the translation does not comply with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), in that 
it does not identify the translator, does not certify that the translations were complete and 
accurate, and does not certify that the translator is competent to translate from the Chinese into 
English. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of a "Certificate of Honor" from the Laoshan Culture 
Society in Qingdao recognizing his "extraordinary contributions to the study of Wushu culture" 
and his "outstanding achievements in national competitions in 2003 and 2004." The translation 
accompanying the document suffers from the same deficiencies as that discussed immediately 
above. Additionally, the certificate, as translated, does not identify the petitioner's contributions 
to the study of Wushu and how they are of major significance to his field. 
On appeal, 
task. That, however, was exactly what [the petitioner] did." 
further stated: 
First of all, [the petitioner's] many Wushu forms and styles derived from original 
ideas of his own creativity. 
Secondly, [his] noble, elegant, vivid natural, creative, inspiring and impressive 
Wushu style to some extent influenced many of his domestic peers, encouraging 
them to not limit their Wushu styles to simple techniques and skills. 
Moreover, many peers considered [the petitioner] as their role models with 
regards to their Wushu styles. 
In addition, [the petitioner] has received wide national and international acclaims 
from peers and audiences. 
[The petitioner] created a unique style that quickly became the favorite of Wushu 
enthusiasts throughout the world, and thus be became known to the Wushu 
community as the "Traditional Wushu Revolutionist". 
Nonetheless, while the petitioner may have been creative and inspired others, 
 fails to 
specifically identify, for instance, the techniques or skills that the petitioner has developed or 
modified to demonstrate how his contributions are original and how they are of major 
signification to his field. Although 
 claims that the petitioner has been "influential," he 
his statement lacks probative details regarding the petitioner's specific contributions. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion either as a 
competitor or as a coach. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted copies of photographs that he stated depicted him 
"showcasing" at various Wushu competitions. The director did not address this criterion in his 
decision. 
The wording of this criterion indicates that it is intended for those in the visual arts such as 
sculptors and painters rather than for martial arts competitions in which the petitioner has 
competed. In his December 18, 2008 letter submitted on appeal, states that he is "of 
the opinion that [the petitioner] has maintained a very solid record of having his work displayed 
or showcased at numerous national and international competitions and exhibitions for the arts of 
wushu." further states: 
I understand that for some, wushu may not be a conventional discipline of "visual 
arts" as these words are understood in its traditional sense, but for those of us 
working in the field of creative marshal [sic] arts, wushu is and should be as much 
a kind of "visual art" as, e.g., painting or sculpting. That is why we proudly call 
our work "marshal arts [sic]." 
Nonetheless, the martial arts are not visual arts such as painting or sculpting. Further, the 
petitioner alleges only that his work was "showcased" in competitions. He neither alleged nor 
submitted documentation that his work was the subject of a specific display or was the focus of 
these competitions. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion either as a competitor or as a 
coach. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) states: "lfthe above standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." [Emphasis added]. 
Counsel asserts on appeal: 
It is Petitioner's position that the regulatory language on other comparable 
evidence need not to be resorted to because there is no indication that his 
eligibility for visa preference in the category of extraordinary ability alien cannot 
be established by three of the ten criteria specified by the regulation. However, 
regardless of whether or not at least three of the ten criteria have been satisfied, it 
Page 13 
is arguable that the abundance of petitioner's supporting material attesting to his 
excellence and extraordinariness at least qualifies as "other comparable evidence" 
to support his petition. 
Counsel admits that the ten regulatory criteria are applicable to the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
The regulatory language therefore precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this 
case. Further, the regulation makes no provision for a petitioner to establish eligibility for this 
visa petition by an overall "abundance" of evidence when it is insufficient to meet the 
enumerated criteria. 
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 his field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself in 
the martial arts to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The 
evidence indicates that the petitioner is a skilled and successful Wushu competitor, but is not 
persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his 
field either as a competitor or as a coach. The petitioner has not established that he has coached 
at any level of competition. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.