dismissed EB-1A Case: Mixed Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10574337 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 5, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . 
This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States . 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) . The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has competed in several events at various levels, including international competitions held 
by the International MMA Federation (IMMAF) and various regional and national organizations under 
the IMMAF's umbrella. A printout from IMMAF's website in the record shows that IMMAF 
competitions are for amateur fighters. More recently, the Petitioner has competed professionally. At the 
time he filed the petition in July 2018, he was in B-2 nonimmigrant status, having entered the United 
States in February 2018. A September 2018 printout from an MMA website indicated that the Petitioner's 
professional record consisted of three wins and one loss, some of which occurred after the filing date. 1 
A. One-Time Achievement 
Ihe Petitioner cl:airus three one-time achievements both described in a letter from thel 
I ~ a bronze medal I ' I at the 2017 
MMA World Championship and gold medals at two I I championships in 2016 and 2017. He 
acknowledges the I I events as "regional competition[ s]." The letter from the I I indicates 
that the Petitioner defeated "12 other competitors" ~-----~in 2017, while 11 athletes competed 
in 2016. 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this 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. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The selection ofNobel 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. 
1 The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
2 
The burden is on the Petitioner to establish that his prizes at least approach a comparable level of 
recogmt1on. The Petitioner has not shown that either of the above competitions has the major, 
international recognition that the regulation demands. The international character of the competitions is 
not sufficient by itself; the regulatory reference to "lesser . . . internationally recognized prizes" 
demonstrates that a prize or award can be international without being major. 
The Petitioner has not established receipt of a major internationally recognized award. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have met four criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met any of the claimed criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that he met the criteria numbered (i), (iii), and (v). He also newly claims to have 
met the criterion numbered (viii), relating to a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations 
or establishments. The Petitioner does not discuss the criterion numbered (vii), and therefore we 
consider that issue to be abandoned. 2 We discuss the claimed criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion. We disagree. 
The Petitioner submits evidence that he won or placed highly at events sponsored by the IMMAF or 
subsidiary organizations. The Director determined that the submitted evidence is deficient for various 
reasons, such as inadequate translations or incomplete documentation. But taken as a whole, the 
documentation shows that the Petitioner has won national and international competitions under the 
authority of a major international governing body. We do not agree with the Petitioner that he has won a 
major internationally recognized award, but the evidence of record is sufficient to meet the lesser 
standards of this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
2 See Matter of R-A-M-. 25 T&N Dec. 657. 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att:v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226. 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005). citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l. *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
3 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submits copies and printouts of articles from various sources. Some of these materials are 
lists of competitors and tournament results, which are not "about" any one given participant. Others 
mention the Petitioner inl passing I but are not about him; for example, an article on IMMAF' s website 
focuses on the return to of an athlete who had been competing for I I and names the 
Petitioner in a discussion of how thel lteam had fared in that athlete's absence. 
Below, we focus on articles that prominently feature the Petitioner. Such articles have appeared on 
IMMAF' s website and in publications such as Illyria Press and Klan. The burden is on the Petitioner to 
establish that these publications qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Illyria Press is described as a publication forl I and includes advertisements for local 
businesses such as law firms and car dealerships, indicating a relatively narrow readership of I I 
language speakers in the New York metropolitan area. 
For one I ~language article from Sport Ekspres, the Petitioner submitted only a partial translation. 
The Petitioner's name is in the article's headline, but appears only twice in the article itself Without a 
complete translation, we cannot determine the extent to which the article is about the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner submits materials from the websites of two majorl I television networks. The 
stories identify the Petitioner as one of twol I athletes competing at an international event in 
Bahrain. The submitted printouts are brief announcements of the upcoming matches, followed soon after 
by the results of those competitions. These very brief pieces, comprising a few sentences each, identify 
the Petitioner as an MMA fighter but otherwise provide little information about him. This coverage was 
about the event rather than the participants. 
Other materials in the record discuss the Petitioner in greater depth, but the Petitioner has not shown that 
this coverage appeared in media that qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. The Petitioner submits information pages for some of the websites, but while these printouts 
provide some background information, they do not show that the websites meet the requirements 
specified in the regulation. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
The Petitioner states that his highl competrve rankings amount to contributions of major significance 
because his victories "have placed as a true competitor in the world of MMA." This is a vague 
and general statement. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not explain how improving! ts rankings 
by an indeterminate amount constitutes an original athletic contribution. Skill and success are not 
intrinsically original contributions, and the Petitioner has not shown how his victories are different from 
those of other winners of MMA competitions. 
4 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
We will not consider this newly claimed criterion during these appeal proceedings. The Petitioner did 
not claim to have satisfied this criterion until he filed the appeal, and the exhibits submitted in support of 
the claim were not in the record prior to the appeal. The purpose of an appeal is to establish error in the 
decision being appealed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) requires that an appellant "identify 
specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal." Because the Petitioner 
had never previously claimed to have satisfied this criterion, the Director cannot have erred with respect 
to the criterion. 
Moreover, as the newly claimed criterion cannot change the outcome of the petition, we decline to remand 
the matter for the Director to make a determination on that criterion. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 (1976) ("As a general rule, courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach."); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 
516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has won some ref onal titles and placed highly at an 
international competition, and in doing so has brought I some degree of notice in the MMA 
sport, but the record does not demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim, 
consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). We note that 
the Petitioner's most notable successes have been at the amateur level. He has since progressed to 
professional competition, but the record does not establish his professional ranking or otherwise 
demonstrate that he has earned acclaim and reached the top of his field as a professional athlete. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5