dismissed EB-1A Case: Mixed Martial Arts

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JAN 0 9 2015 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:ljwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
J!����lrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as a mixed 
martial arts (MMA) fighter.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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we 
agree that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification 
sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the field of endeavor, 
and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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. 
1 According to information on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last admitted to 
the United States on January 31, 2013 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 51 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordi nary ability" refers on ly to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. ld.; 
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 the alien's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the alien's achievements in the field 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If 
the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner 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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(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. 20 11 ) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), 
aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (91h 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. 
369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to 
determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Translations 
Although the director did not address this issue, the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner 
submitted numerous foreign language documents without any English language translations, as well 
as some non-certified English language translations. We conduct appellate review on a de novo 
basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Da r v. INS, 89;1 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 
(2d Cir. 1989). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103. 2(b) provides in pertinent part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner submitted a single translation certification, which states that it 
certifies the translation "of the document entitled or pertaining to [the petitioner ]." It is unclear to , which of the submitted documents, if any, the certification pertains. The submission of a single , 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
translation certification that does not identify the document or documents it purportedly accompanies 
does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Because the petitioner 
failed to submit a certified English language translation for each foreign language document, we 
cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the evidence 
is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
B. One-time Achievement 
Under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner may, as initial evidence, present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is "a major, internationally recognized award. " In a July 
24, 2013 letter accompanying the Form I-140 petition, the petitioner stated that he "is a professional 
MMA fighter which could be easily considered a 'one time major achievement. "' The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award. On appeal, the petitioner's brief states, without further explanation, that he has 
"submitted proof of his one-time major achievement." The petitioner does not provide any 
additional evidence or offer any additional arguments identifying any errors of law or facl in the 
director's analysis. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned this issue. Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 
343 Fed. Appx. 433, 435 (11 1h Cir. 2009)(finding that issues for which the petition er makes no 
substantive argument on appeal are deemed abandoned). Regardless, the petitioner's purported 
achievement, becoming a professional MMA fighter, does not meet the regulatory requirements of a 
one-time achievement, which states that a one-time achievement is "a major, internationally recognized 
award." 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
As the petitioner has neither asserted nor submitted evidence that he has received such an award, the 
petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) -(x) 
to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
C. Evidentiary Criteria2 
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 determined that the petitioner's evidence did not to meet the requirements of this 
regulatory criterion. The director stated that the petitioner had submitted evidence that he won 
"several fights, including the _ _ _ [and] 
' as well as evidence of certificates he received. The director found, however, that 
the petitioner had not established that the prizes or awards were given for excellence in the field, or 
that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized. On appeal, the petitioner's brief 
contends that winning any of these fights requires excellence in the field and that the competitors, 
"when victorious, are internationally recognized." The brief further states that the petitioner 
competed in two additional fight events while his Form 1-140 petition was pending. 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field of endeavo r." It is the petitioner's burden to establish that the evidence meets every element of 
this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate his receipt of prizes and awards, he must 
also demonstrate that those prizes and awards are nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
First, we withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish 
that he won the three fights cited above. As previously stated, we conduct appellate review on a de 
novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145; Da r v. INS, 891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9 (. As initial 
evidence of these awards, the petitioner submitted a list of the dates and locations of various 
tournaments, indicating his purported placement in each tournament. The petitioner also submitted a 
translation of a letter from the secretary of' pu rportedly 
congratulating the petitioner's father "for the recent won by your son. " 
In addition, the petitioner submitted translations of news articles from various publications, some of 
which purportedly stated that the petitioner placed second in the juvenile, medium weight, blue belt 
category at the 
_ 
Brazil, in and placed first in that 
category in a Brazilian championship of . Neither the letter nor the articles 
were accompanied by a full, certified English language translation as required by the regulation at 
8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(3). In response to a Request for Evidence (RFE) from the director, the petitioner 
submitted a letter from CEO and president of Florida, 
stating in part that the petitioner won the following titles: in him [sic] 
weight class; and 
second place in the " Finally, the petitioner submitted a photograph of the 
medal with the engraved words ' 
" 
Regarding the submitted photograph, no translation was provided for the words on the medal, nor 
did the photograph of the medal reflect that the medal was presented to the petitioner. Although the 
petitioner indicated that he received the medal for placing second in the ' 
_ ' ' there is no documentary evidence to support that assertion. 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 of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). As the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocu mentation of the alien's receipt" of awards, 
submitting photographs of medals or trophies that do not identify the recipient is insufficient to 
demonstrate that the petitioner actually garnered the medals or trophies. 
The petitioner did not submit primary evidence of his receipt of the awards in question. According 
to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i), only where the petitioner demonstrates that pr imary 
evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and 
only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable -may the petitioner rely on 
affidavits. As noted above, the submitted photograph of the petitioner's purported medal from the 
' did not identify a recipient, and the submitted news articles were 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
not accompanied by the required full, certified English language translation. The petitioner did not 
submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that primary evidence and secondary evidence do 
not exist or are unavailable. Further, the letter from Mr. the list of tournaments submitted 
at filing, and the petitioner's assertions in the appellate brief and in the correspondence suppor ting 
the petition are not affidavits. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted su pp orting 
documentation in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i). 
For the reasons discussed above, the etitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that he 
won awards at the " 
" Further, the petitioner did not establish that these awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i) requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor, and it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish every element of this criterion. An award with 
in the title does not automatically elevate the award to a nationally or internationally recognized 
award. Without supporting documentary evidence, the name of an award is insufficient to establish 
that it is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. In the letter. 
accompanying the petition, the petitioner asserted that the above awards "are known worldwide for 
being given to the best of the field of mixed martial arts and ." In suppo rt of that 
assertion, the petitioner submitted the above-mentioned "letter of congratulations" and news articles 
which, as discussed previously, were not accompanied by full, certified English language 
translations as required under 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). In addition to the lack of certified translations, 
the petitioner did not sufficiently identify the sources of the news articles to establish national or 
international recognition of the named awards. In response to the RFE, the petitioner asserted that 
the is a "worldw ide" competition, and that "[t]here is a pa nel of 
judges who are all black belts in and various MMA styles of fighting." The 
petitioner did not, however, present any evidence regarding the competitors or judges in the 
tournament to support this assertion. Again, 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. at 165. 
Regarding the petitioner' s contention on appeal that he participated in additional fight events after 
filing the petition, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. § 103. 2(b)(1), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, we cannot consider 
evidence regarding fight events held after July 26, 2013 to establish the petitioner's eligib ility at the 
time of filing. 
Although not discussed by the director, the etitioner submitted evidence that he received a first 
place award in the 
_ 
. U.S. Open competition. 
Again, we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145; Dar v. 
INS, 891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. The petitioner submitted "Event Results" from the website 
(www. indicating that the petitioner won first place in the 
' category, as well as a photograph of the petitioner with the title belt from the 
competition. While the petitioner demonstrated that he won this award, the petitioner did not submit 
any documentary evidence establishing that the award is nationally or internationally recognized for 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
excellence in the field of MMA. Submitting evidence of the petitioner's receipt of a prize or award 
is insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) without 
documentary evidence reflecting that the prize or award is nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. In addition, the petitioner's receipt of the award 
would not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), as the plain language of the regulation 
requires "[ d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor" in the plural, which is consistent with the 
statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not met the requirements of this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields·. 
8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. In his brief 
submitted on appeal, the petitioner did not contest the findings of the director for this criterion or 
offer additional arguments. When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is 
abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. 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) (plaintiffs claims 
abandoned when not raised on appeal). Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. The 
director stated that the submitted published material was deficient in that it did not include titles, 
dates, and authors of the submitted articles, and the petitioner failed to submit re quested information 
including the circulation and intended audience of the publications. The director determined that the 
petitioner failed to establish that the submitted material was published in professional or major trade 
publications. On appeal, the petitioner submits additional evidence and contends in his brief that he 
. has submitted "multiple articles and videos published and released on major media outlets." 
This regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) contains several evidentiary requirements the petitione r 
must satisfy. First, the published material must be about the petitioner and the contents must relate 
to the petitioner's work in the field under which he seeks classification as an immigrant. The 
published material must also appear in professional or major trade publications or other major media 
(in the plural). The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published item's title, date, 
and author and, if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must provide a 
translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(3). The p etitioner must 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner's July 24, 2013 letter, submitted with the Form I-140 petition, stated the following 
regarding this criterion: 
[The petitioner] has been the subject of numerous newspaper and magazine articles 
throughout his fighting career. We have attached some of these articles to 
substantiate this category and provide evidence of [the petitioner's] eligibility .... 
The attached documents include articles form several international periodicals. 
We've attached a small sample for your consideration. 
[The petitioner] has also been the subject of several television publications, many 
videos of which have been featured on YouTube and viewed thousands of times by 
fans. http:// www _ An internet search of [the 
petitioner] will reveal several more television publications. 
As supporting evidence, the petitioner submitted co ies of non-English language articles from 
The 
accompanying English translations of these articles were not certified in accordance with the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), nor did they identify the dates and authors of the articles as 
required by this regulatory criterion. The petitioner also submitted printouts from various websites 
listing the results of fight events in which the petitioner competed. The websites included 
www. and www 
The director's RFE requested certified translations of all non-English language documents. ln 
addition, the director instructed the petitioner to submit additional evidence under this criterion, 
including evidence to establish that the publications qualify as professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. The petitioner's November 26, 2013 letter responding to the 
director's RFE stated: 
� 
are very famous well-known 
publications in and world-wide. They encompass all different sports but as 
MMA is very popular in often pieces are dedicated to MMA. They discuss all 
the MMA tournaments, especially They are not free publications but 
need to be paid for by the readers. 
On appeal, the petitioner's brief asserts that ' 
are nationally and regionally recognized newspapers in , with circulations of over 2 million 
copies." The petitioner did not submit certified English language translations of the previously 
submitted articles, nor did he submit any documentary evidence regarding the readership or 
3 The petitioner submitted additional photocopies of articles on which the name of the publication was not included or 
was not legible. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
circulation of the named publications. As previously stated, 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. at 165. Therefore, the submitted articles from the 
named publications are insufficient to establish eligibility under this criterion. 
The petitioner's brief on appeal also asserts that the websites 
and www . qualify as major media. The petitioner submits statistics from each of those 
websites regarding their number of online visitors, as well as a printout of the petitioner's profile and 
additional event results from www Rather than providing impartial documentary 
evidence, the petitioner submitted background information from the publications' or organizations' 
websites. USCIS, however, 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 magazine's status as major media). There is no 
objective evidence showing that the named websites are major media. 
Furthermore, the record does not include any articles about the petitioner on the above named 
website�. On and www . the petitioner has submitted listings of 
event results in which he is named, and a profile that includes his name, age, height, weight, 
association, and fight history. The submission of results from a sporting event without any 
discussion of the petitioner and his work is not consistent with the meaning of published material 
about the alien pursuant to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Similarly, the submitted profile does not meet the regulatory requirements as it does not include a 
discussion of the petitioner's work, nor does it include a date and author. 
With regard to www. the petitioner's brief asserts that "[t]he videos 
submitted as part of [the petitioner's] I-140 petition each have over one thousand views." The 
petitioner does not submit documentary evidence in support of that assertion. Again, 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. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Moreover, we are reluctant to consider the number of "views" 
documented on because "views" can be self-generated. In addition, regardless of the 
number of views, the presence of a video clip on a user-edited website such as www. 
does not indicate that the material has been "published" in major media according to the plain 
language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The petitioner has not demonstrated that an 
undeniably overall popular website but ultimately one where anyone with a computer can upload 
their videos, constitutes major media coverage about an individual athlete whose video footage 
appears on the site. The petitioner did not submit the title, date and author of the purported videos, 
nor did he submit evidence that the video clips are independent, journalistic coverage of the 
petitioner relating to his work. 
Finally, on appeal, the petitioner submits a February article from .com, m 
part discussing the petitioner's role in a fight event, " As this article 
was published after the petition was filed, it does not establish the petitioner's eligibility at the time 
of filing. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1), (12); Matter 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Further, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish that 
.com constitutes a professional or major trade publication or form of major media. 
Based on the above discussion, the petitioner has not met the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. The director stated that "the evidence does not indicate that the bene fic iary ' s 
works were displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases." 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. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. The 
director discussed an October 30, 2013 letter from 
Florida, but concluded that the evidence failed to 
demonstrate that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for the organization. On appeal, 
the petitioner asserts in his brief that he plays a critical role in as "a member of the 
" a sparring/training partner for other MMA fighters, and a fight 
instructor within the academy. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e] vidence that the 
alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." In general, a leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy, and a critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's significant 
impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner must also demonstrate 
that the organizations or establishments (in the plural) have a distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a March 20, 2013 letter from 
"CEO and President of _j stating that the petitioner is a competitive MMA fighter at 
and that he "trains with top contender[s] at our acade my." Mr. further 
stated that the petitioner is "an asset to the community." The petitioner also submitted a J u I v 10, 
2013 letter from who identified herself as a professional fighter at 
and "the first female professional mixed martial artist that is [signed] with the biggest 
mixed martial arts promotion in the world, " Ms. 
asserted that the petitioner is a talented fighter, "one of the best training partners that 1 have 
trained with," and "a huge part to [sic] the professional fight team." In addition, the pe tit i oner 
submitted an undated letter from who identified himself as a professional mixed 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
martial artist and the "founder and owner of the largest organization in 
Florida, " Mr. stated that he found in his search for "a more 
elite training camp," and that the petitioner has served as his training partner there. Further, he 
stated that the petitioner "is often the first one in the gym and the last one to leave, making sure to 
help in any way he can in the meantime, whether it is instructing new students, helping dean the 
mats and cage, or working on his English with new friends." 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted an additional letter from Mr. 
dated October 30, 2013 in which he stated: 
[The petitioner 1 is a competitive fighter as well as a Lead instructor at 
[The petitioner is regarded as one of 
the nation's top Black Belts in the sport of as well as 
In addition to being a great competitive fighter, [the petitioner] is also one of the best 
instructors I have had the opportunity to watch instruct on the mat. His knowledge, 
patience, and generosity with the students in our academy are limitless. There are 
very few individuals in this sport who demonstrate these values and [the petitioner] is 
one of those few. 
My Academy is fortunate to have [the petitioner] as one of its Lead instructors. 
The petitioner also submitted various letters of recommendation from individuals attesting to the 
petitioner's character and his skills as an MMA fighter, teacher, coach, training partner, and student. 
On appeal, the petitioner notes that he trains with many of the other MMA fighters at 
and contends that "training is critical for an MMA fighter." The petitioner also asserts that he is an 
asset to and plays "a critical role" for the organization. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that he is "one of [the] Lead instructors" at 
However, the job title alone does not establish the nature of the petitioner's role as either leading or 
critical. The letters from do not describe how the petitioner's position fits within the 
overall hierarchy of the organization, nor did the petitioner provide an organizational chart or other 
similar evidence. In addition, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence differentiating 
his role from that of the other employees at so as to establish that he performed in a 
leading or critical role. The submitted letters fall short of specifying how the petitioner contributed 
to the organization in a way that was significant to its success or standing. Accordingly, the record 
does not establish that the petitioner served in a leading or critical role for as required 
under this regulatory criterion. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that 
has "a distinguished reputation," as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h )(3)(viii). 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the 
petitioner to perform in a leading or critical role for "organizations or establishments" in the plural. 
The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded 
in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service 
on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the 
singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that 
evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the plural in the remaining 
regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to 
interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. Cf Maramjaya v. 
USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. 
Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005, at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5( 1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
D. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
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 intemational 
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 clone so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirem ent of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
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 
4 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceedin g, we main tain 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 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).