dismissed EB-1A Case: Professional Go Game

ldmMjing data deleted to 
prevent dearly nnwarraw%ed 
i?jv-.cir;~ of DSTSQR~: privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
8 d+i 
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. 9 1153(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. 
5 Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center. The Administrative Appeals Office (MO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before the 
AAO on a motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be granted, the previous decision for the AAO will 
be affirmed, and the petition will be denied. 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director and the MO previously determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability, or that he would 
work in his area of extraordinary ability. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). 
On motion, counsel does not dispute the AAO's finding that neither of the petitioner's third place finishes at 
the 2003 U.S. Go Congress or in the "Eastern Division" at the 2004 American Toyota/Denso Oza 
Championship constitute a major, internationally recognized award. We note that the petitioner's third place 
divisional award at the American ToyotdDenso Oza Championship in 2004 occurred subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The regulation permitting eligibility based on a single award 
must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally 
recognized awards. Examples of one-time awards which enjoy truly international recognition include the 
Nobel Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant for athletics) the Olympic Gold Medal. The level of 
acclaim and recognition associated with the petitioner's awards fall well short of that required by the 
regulation. The petitioner's awards will be further addressed below as "lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards." 
Barring the alien's receipt of a major, internationally recognized 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In its prior decision the MO concluded that the petitioner's third place at the 2003 U.S. Go Congress open 
competition adequately satisfied this criterion. Counsels arguments on motion regarding the petitioner's third 
place finishes in the Eastern Division at the Second North American ToyotdDenso Oza Championship in 2004 
and the New Jersey Go Open are largely irrelevant because the AAO has already concluded that this criterion 
has been met. 
Regarding the petitioner's third place in the Eastern Division at the Second North American ToyotaIDenso Oza 
Championship in 2004, it has already been noted that this event occurred subsequent to the petition's filing 
date. See Matter of Katigbak at 45, 49. 
Regarding the petitioner's third place finishes at the New Jersey Open Go Tournament in 2002 and 2003, counsel 
asserts that that this competition is a nationally recognized event. Counsel further states: 
We contend that whether an event is a nationally recognized event is simply not determined by the event's 
name but by other factors including origins of its actual participants, sponsorship, organizer and prestige 
of the event with the community of participants. Boston Marathon, for example, is not a regional 
competition. . . . 
 New Jersey Go Open is not a regional competition. We have previously submitted 
documentation concerning the New Jersey Go Open showing that it is an event sponsored by the AGA 
[American Go Association] open to Go players regardless of their residence with actual participation of 
Go players who are not residents of New Jersey. These documents need to be considered. 
While counsel's motion does not specifically identify the documents that establish that the New Jersey Open 
Go Tournament is "a nationally recognized event," counsel's appellate brief dated January 6, 2005 stated: 
The New Jersey Go Open is organized and sponsored by the American Go Association. As with all 
AGA sponsored tournaments, New Jersey tournament is open to all Go players not only in New Jersey 
but also in other states and countries. . . . We now enclose tournament calendar as listed on the AGA 
website to show that all AGA sponsored tournaments are open to all Go players in the United States. 
Exhibit V. In addition, we are also enclosing documentation that Go players participating in the New 
Jersey Go Open are residents of other states in the country. For example the champion of 
the 2003 New Jersey Open is from Maryland. Exhibit W. 
We note, however, that Exhibit V, the "Open Tournament and Workshop Calendar" listing from the AGA's 
website, did not include the New Jersey Go Open. Exhibit W, page 37 of the Spring 2003 issue of the 
American Go Journal, includes a listing of tournament results for various competitions held in January, 
Februarv. and March of 2003. Under the heading "New Jersev Ouen." it states: "85 registered ~lavers. 
,I " 
including young players from th school. 
EW JERSEY STATE CHAMPIONSHIP: co-champions 
eyual3'"11'"e petitioner] (7d). " 
and the petitioner appear under the "NEW JERSEY STATE CHAMPIONSHIP" category [emphasis added]. 
If this competition were truly national as counsel claims, it is not apparent as to why the words "STATE 
CHAMPIONSHIP" appear before the listing of winners. Counsel's assertion that the preceding 
documentation shows that "the New Jersey Open Go Tournament is . . . a nationally recognized event" is far 
from persuasive. Further, counsel's assertion that 
 is a resident of Maryland is not supported by 
evidence. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Even if we were to accept counsel's claim that is a Maryland 
resident, there is no evidence showing that a substantial number of the 84 other registered "players 
participating in the New Jersey Go Open are residents of other states in the country" (as claimed by counsel). 
Thus, it has not been shown that a victory at the New Jersey Go Open reflects national recognition rather than 
regional recognition. 
Page 4 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which clms$cation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a letter from 
 President of the American Go Association, who 
states: 
The American Go E-Journal published by AGA is the most popular Go related publication in the United 
States today. Its world-wide circulation is more than 7,000. There are over 2,000 current members of the 
AGA and as with other sports, a hundred times that many non-member players. The circulation of our 
twice weekly journal is greater than any other Western publication on Go. There is no other Western 
produced Go related publication that has nationwide circulation in the United States. 
Counsel asserts that "the American Go Journal is a major trade publication and the articles in the 'Score 
Board' Section are related to the petitioner's Go playing." Counsel incorrectly uses the term "articles" to 
describe the data appearing in the "Scoreboard" section. The Scoreboard section of the Spring 2002 and 
Spring 2003 printed issues of the American Go Journal consist of multiple listings of various Go tournament 
results rather than articles about the petitioner (more than 150 other Go player names are listed in the same 
manner as that of the petitioner). We further note that the information provided by relates to 
current issues of the American Go E-Journal rather than the Spring 2002 and Spring 2003 printed issues of 
the American Go Journal. 
 Assuming we were to accept that both journals qualify as "major trade 
publications or other major media," counsel has not addressed the following deficiencies cited in the AAO's 
October 2 1, 2005 decision: 
The petitioner . . . submitted local tournament results published in the "Scoreboard" section of the 
Spring 2002 and Spring 2003 issues of American Go ~ournal.' Among these results, the petitioner is 
listed as placing third twice at the "New Jersey State Championships" (page 44 of the Spring 2002 issue 
and page 37 of the Spring 2003 issue). Clearly the petitioner is not the primary subject of material 
presented. We cannot ignore that numerous other Go players from various tournaments around the 
country are similarly listed in the Scoreboard section. Winning a state tournament is not evidence of 
national or international acclaim. In addition, in the "Ratings" section of the Spring 2003 issue (page 
45)' the petitioner is listed as the 12'~ ranked player according to data compiled by the journal's ratings 
editor and American Go Association statistician. Simply having one's name listed in this manner does 
not constitute qualifying "published material about the alien." In the preceding instances, the material 
does not single out the petitioner from the other amateur players listed, nor does it offer any substantive 
discussion about his extraordinary achievement or national acclaim as Go player. 
Counsel further states: "The AGA Annual report for 2003 and AGA website listings are major trade publications 
since they are published online by the official and only national Go association in the United States and the 
information published is readily available to the public." This material, which is not the result of independent 
journalistic reportage, cannot serve to meet this criterion. Simply having one's name listed online is not 
1 
This section of the journal posts the results for local Go tournaments such as the "Pennsylvania Open" and the "Denver 
Fall Open." 
Page 5 
evidence of national or international acclaim. The record includes no evidence showing that the petitioner was 
the primary subject of the material, nor is there evidence showing the number of website hits that the petitioner's 
online postings received. Regarding the AGA Annual Report for 2003 and the AGA website listing, the AAO 
previously stated: 
The petitioner submitted the 2003 Annual Report for the American Go Association which states (at the 
bottom of page nine) that the petitioner will chair the "Ing Grant Management" Committee. The 2003 
Annual Report is about the association's financial status rather than the petitioner or his individual 
achievements as a Go player. Furthermore, we cannot ignore that the petitioner seeks classification as a 
"Go player" not as a financial grant manager. 
Counsel asserts that an American Go Association website listing the petitioner "as the Chairman of Ing 
Fund Management" should also be considered under this criterion. Inclusion on a list of approximately 
30 officers and volunteers of the American Go Association is not qualifying "published material about 
the alien." If the petitioner himself is not the primary subject of the material, then it fails to demonstrate 
his individual acclaim. 
We cannot conclude that the petitioner's evidence meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of spec$cation for which classiJication is sought. 
The petitioner initially submitted a December 18, 2003 letter fro-rincipal, 
Piscataway, New Jersey. She states: "[The petitioner] . . . served as Judge for Youth 
Go Tournament." 
 Aside from this single sentence, the December 18, 2003 letter provides no further 
information regarding the above "Youth Group" competition. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a second letter from , dated December 2 1,2004, who identified 
herself this time as a "9-dan Professional Go Player." She states: 
I would . . . like to certify that [the petitioner] served as a referee for the First 
 Youth Go 
Tournament, a national competition organized by me and named in my name. 
national competition and is the only one of its kind in the United States. The level of competition 
represents the highest among young Go players in the country. 1 also certify that all the referees for this 
competition are top Go players in the United States and [the petitioner] was chosen as a referee because 
he is one of the best in the country. 
In addressing the December 21, 2004 letter fro- the AAOYs prior decision stated: 
The record, however, contains no evidence to supPo- assertions. For example, national 
level competitions typically issue event programs listing the order of events, the names of all of the 
participating players, the teams or locations which the players represent, and their competitive rankings. 
At a competition's conclusion, results are usually provided indicating how each participant performed 
in relation to the other competitors. The petitioner, however, has provided no such evidence to support 
assertions in regard to the ~irstouth Go Tournament. Furthermore, there is no 
evidence showing that this competition fielded a significant number of top Go players from throughout 
the U.S. (rather than mostly local youths from New Jersey). Nor is there supporting evidence listing the 
other referees and their respective Go rankings. We cannot ignore the statute's demand for "extensive 
documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. 
 We note the absence of published 
material or national publicity surrounding the First 
f 
Youth Go Tournament. Evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition is o greater weight than letters of support prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. Without contemporaneous evidence showing that the 
tournament involved top players from throughout the country (rather than local children), we cannot 
conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. Furthermore, we note that the petitioner claims 
eligibility under this criterion based on his refereeing of only one youth tournament. The statute and 
regulations, however, require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. We find that the petitioner's 
limited and recent referee activity is not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
On motion, counsel states: "The AAO's finding that the petitioner did not provide a list of other judges and 
their Go rankings in the same competition as one of the reasons for dismissing the petitioner's claim 
concerning, this issue has no legal basis in the statute or regulations." In this instance. the AAO was sim~lv 
- - - . - 
responding to assertion "that all the referees for this competition are top Go players in the United 
States." There was no supporting evidence identifying the names of these referees or statistical data showing 
their top national rankings. Counsel appears to have overlooked the requirement under section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act requiring "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. As noted in the 
AAO's prior decision, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of 
extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
Counsel further states: 
To summarily dismiss 
 own written statement verifying the scope of the competition and 
the petitioner's participation in the competition as a judge is something that is very difficult to 
understand, especially when one considers the fact that even a past employer's written verification 
concerning an alien's past employment with that employer is generally accepted as conclusive evidence 
of the past employment. 
written statement and the petitioner's participation in her tournament as a referee for the youth 
competlt~on were properly evaluated in terms of the relevant statute and corresponding regulations. The 
regulations governing the present immigrant visa determination have no requirement mandating that Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (CIS) specifically accept the credibility of personal testimony, even if not corroborated. 
The regulations provide that eligibility may be established through a one-time achievement or through 
documentation meeting at least three of ten criteria. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing 
this statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability 
is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that 
required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (1991). The regulatory criteria require specific 
documentation beyond mere testimony. 
On motion, counsel cites Exhibit V, the "Open Tournament and Workshop Calendar" listing from the AGA's 
website, dated January 8, 2005, as evidence "that the-outh Go Tornament is acknowledged by the 
AGA as one of the major Go competitions in the United States." The evidence submitted by the petitioner 
does not support this assertion. First, the 2005 " 
 ment and Workshop Calendar" lists the "3rd 
Go Tournament" rather than the "First 
 Youth Go Tournament" [emphasis added] in 
which the petitioner served as a referee. Second, there is no indication that the twenty other events listed 
under the "Open Tournament and Workshop Calendar" all represent national level competitive events. 
According to information immediately following the "Open Tournament and Workshop Calendar" listing, it 
appears that anyone interested may register a tournament or workshop on this part of the AGA website. 
There is no indication that only national level competitions are publicized and that local events are excluded 
from this section. The 2005 event calendar listing states: "Planning a Go Tournament or Workshop? GET 
LISTED! There is no charge for a listing on this Web page. Your tournament will be publicized here." 
Most importantly, counsel does not address the AAO's finding that the petitioner evaluated amateur youth 
rather than competition at the highest level of his sport. We find that refereeing a national Go competition 
involving professionals at the national level (such as the national finals of the American ToyotaIDenso Oza 
Championship) is of far greater probative value than refereeing an amateur competition involving children such 
as a local "youth" tournament in New Jersey (as in the present case). The petitioner has not submitted evidence 
identifying the names, rankings, and competitive categories of the individuals he refereed. Without 
contemporaneous evidence showing that the petitioner refereed top Go players from throughout the country 
(rather primarily local children from New Jersey), we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of a seven-sentence game commentary posted in the April 14,2003 version 
of the American Go E-Journal. 
The commentary states: 
Black 19 is slow. Black's intention is to cut at G5 if White answers 19 at F2, which will provide a 
better result than the normal sequence. See variation. After White 54, White starts to get control of the 
game since now Black has two separate groups in White's moyo to worry about. White 148 is a good 
move at this moment. It has the cut at L8 or the connection at N10 to invade Black's center moyo. 
Black resigns after White 192. 
On motion, counsel states: "The simple fact that the alien's commentary is published in the most popular and 
only Western publication on Go in the United States shows the significance of the petitioner's publication." 
Assuming we were to accept that the American Go E-Journal qualifies as a "major trade publication or other 
major media," counsel has not addressed the AAO's finding that one brief game commentary constitutes 
"authorship of scholarly articles." We note here that the petitioner was commenting about his own play and 
that his self-commentary was edited by Bill Cobb and Chris Garlock. There is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's online commentary attracted substantial national or international interest, or that posting an on- 
Page 8 
line game commentary about one's self demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim in the sport. 
We cannot conclude that the petitioner's evidence meets this criterion. 
In view of the foregoing, we again find that the evidence satisfies only one of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major internationally recognized 
award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Beyond the preceding criteria, counsel states that the petitioner's lzth ranking as a Go player and his letters of 
support from past and current officials of the American Go Association constitute other comparable evidence 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(4). As stated previously, this regulation allows for the submission of 
comparable evidence, but only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." 
Therefore, the petitioner must demonstrate that the regulatory criteria are not applicable to the alien's field. 
Of the ten criteria, more than half readily apply to the petitioner's sport. Where an alien is simply unable to 
meet three of the regulatory criteria, the wording of the regulation does not allow for the submission of 
comparable evidence. 
In addition to finding that the petitioner had failed to satisfy at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3), the AAO's prior decision stated: 
As noted by the director, section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act requires that "the alien seeks to enter the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." The petitioner's intention to 
continue playing Go is not in dispute; the record shows that the petitioner has recently participated in 
various competitions. More relevant is the issue of whether employment as a Go player will be the 
petitioner's primary occupation and source of income. Because the petitioner seeks an employment- 
based immigrant classification based on his Go playing skills, it is reasonable to require evidence that 
the petitioner has been and will continue to support himself principally as a Go player through 
competitive prize money (rather than competing in his spare time while supporting himself through 
unrelated employment). We cannot ignore the substantial evidence indicating that there are a number 
of professional Go players in the United States who earn significant sums of prize money at both the 
national and international leveL2 Furthermore, in a December 30, 2003 letter accompanying the 
petition, counsel observes: "Millions of dollars in prize money change hands every year." In this 
matter, it should be emphasized that the petitioner seeks an employment-based visa. The evidence of 
record fails to show that the petitioner has been and will continue to support himself primarily through 
his skills as a Go player. 
On motion, counsel states: "We do not think that the word "work" should be narrowly interpreted as 
implying primary occupation or source of income only." [emphasis added] Counsel misstates the AAO's 
findings. Counsel has changed "principally" and "primarily" to "only," thereby refuting an observation that 
the AAO did not make in its prior decision. 
For example, according to Exhibit I of the appellate submission, 
 an 
 are the North American 
representatives to the 2nd ToyotajDenso North American Oza Tournament and will play for $300,000 and a new Lexus." 
Counsel compares the petitioner's situation to that of a "world class swimmer in the United States, a long 
distance runner, a cyclist, an archer, or a member of the U.S. women's softball team," stating: "It is hard to 
believe that all of these athletes could support themselves with their talent and ability in their respective sport 
only and yet a reasonable person would agree that they are continuing work in their fields of endeavor as long 
as they are performing in their top athletic ability." [emphasis added] Once again, counsel's use of the word 
"only" misstates the AAO's prior findings. 
Counsel's argument is not persuasive. We find that top athletes outside of major league sports do still make a 
living in their field through prize money and endorsements (such as marathon runners and cyclists). Counsel 
has not provided the specific names of athletes whose situations would support the conclusion that top 
national athletes are unable to support themselves financially through their sport, nor does he provide any 
official statistics or media citations in support of his assertion. As stated previously, the unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena at 533, 534; Matter of Laureano at 1; 
and Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez at 503, 506. 
We cannot ignore the plain language of the Section 203(b) of the Act, which states: "Preference Allocation 
for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for 
employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas . . . ." Counsel has cited no statute, 
regulation, or standing precedent to support the conclusion that the term "work," in the statute, is divorced 
from the term "employment," which also appears in the statute. The visa classification sought by the 
petitioner is for "employment" in the United States rather than for recreational pursuits. The statute requires 
that the petitioner be seeking to enter the United States to continue to "work" in the area of extraordinary 
ability. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires evidence of an intent to continue working in the 
petitioner's area of expertise, such as letters from prospective employers, prearranged commitments or a 
statement from the petitioner detailing his plans to work in his field. The record includes no such evidence. 
Although prize money is available in his field, the petitioner submits no evidence showing that he has ever 
earned any prize money since coming to the United States in 1997. There is no indication that the petitioner 
will "work in the area of extraordinary ability" rather than supporting himself through employment in an 
unrelated occupation. Thus, the petitioner has not established his ability to make a living by playing Go. Once 
again, we find that the petitioner's evidence fails to satisfy the statutory requirement at section 
203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 
As the evidence and arguments presented on motion do not overcome the grounds for the previous decision of 
the AAO, and it has not been shown that that decision was based on an incorrect application of law, the 
previous decision of the AAO will be affirmed. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Lj 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The AAO's decision of October 2 1,2005 is affirmed. The petition is denied.