dismissed EB-1A Case: Rowing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4688663 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 19, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a rower, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. In addition, 
the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that his entry will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
categories 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner competed in rowing competitions in his native country of Ukraine, Europe, and the 
United States. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, memberships at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and judging at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he meets an additional criterion, 
awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner meets the requirements of at least three criteria. Although the record reflects that the 
Petitioner competed as a member of the I ITeam satisfying the membership criterion, 
for the reasons discussed later, we do not concur with the Director's decision relating to the judging 
criterion. In addition, for the explanations discussed below, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he 
fulfills the awards criterion. 
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) 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, 
and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or 
international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. 
2 
The Petitioner submits documentation reflecting his first, second, and third place finishes at over four 
dozen national and international rowm from 2003 - 2018, such as the "Ro win 
h m ionship for " ' Cham ionship in Rowin ," ' .---~~-------I 
Cham ionshi in Rowing," '.__ ______ ____, 
Rowin Federation of Ukraine 
Ukrainian Rowin " ' inRowin " 
in Rowin " ' in Rowin " '--------~--~-----.===:::......::..:..::...:..:...:=2...-~......,------1 
of Ro win Federation in Ukraine .==~--------~---------" ' 
of Rowing Federation of Ukrai,..,.n..._e ________ "_'..__ ___ ......... ,.._._.........e, 
'-----------,,------------=-, Championsh1r· ~----1 ________ ~....1 Championship," '.___~-----~-----~ 
r'-----...1--....__ _________ ---,-J Rowing Cham ionshi Cham ionship," 
.__ ______ -,--_______ _.' and '.__ _______________ ~ Rowing 
Championships." 3 While the Petitioner offers copies of certificates, diplomas, and medals, he did not 
establish that they qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field. 
Specifically, the Petitioner provides letters confirming his finishes without showing that the bestowed 
prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. For example, 
I ~' stated that the Petitioner "decently represented 
Ukraine at international and national competitions and achieved the highest results" and listed his 
results at over a dozen competitions. 4 MoreoverJ I described the nature and types of 
compet1t10ns, such as an "All-Ukrainian competition," "international competitions," and 
"international meets." However,! ldid not discuss the national or international significance 
of the rizes or awards from the com etitions. Likewise the Petitioner offers a letter from I I 
'----------------.---------.---------' ), who confirmed the Petitioner's 
finishes at six competitions. Again,.__ ___ _.did not provide any farther information or elaborate 
regarding the field's recognition of the Petitioner's placements as national or international prizes or 
awards for excellence. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner prese~enshots from worldrowing.com regarding the background, 
vision, mission, and principles ofL__j the governing body of the sport of rowing. However, the 
screenshots make no mention of rizes or awards. Moreover he submits ,,.....L><J.2 ......... '-'-'-'-""-""........,......., ........ w.>.I; 
re ulations for the ' Rowin " ' 
in Rowing," ' Rowing," 
1,----,-,-a_Jnd I I' Although the evidence indicates that winners will receive diplomas, 
cups, and other awards from the competitions, they do not discuss the standing or view of the awards 
in the field. In addition, while the documentation indicates that Ministry of Youth and Sports in 
Ukraine will distribute the diplomas and awards, the Petitioner did not show that government-based 
prizes or awards are necessarily recognized by the field for excellence. Likewise, the Petitioner did 
not establish that prizes or awards from sanctioning bodies, such asl I are automatically nationally 
or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
3 The Petitioner also documented his eighth place finish at the 2012...._ _______ __, 
4 While we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
Moreover, the Petitioner offers translations of four articles published in the Ukrainian newspaper, 
Grivna, and argues that "the articles were about [his] success in academic rowing throughout his multi­
year career and should have probative value." The articles mention that the Petitioner became a three­
time chamlion of the I I games," received three gold medals at the 
j Championship in rowing," and is "a merited Master of Sports of Ukraine in rowing, 
repeated chamP,ion and country championships winner, 20041 !Champion among juniors, three-
time winner ofl r.Jchampionships, holder ofthel lfor 20121 lin 
I ;; While the Petitioner submits screenshots from similarweb.com regarding 
website traffic for grivna.ka.ua showing a global rank of 432,190 and country rank of 11,567, he did 
not demonstrate that the articles were posted on grivna.ka.ua. Rather, as indicated, the Petitioner 
provides articles published in the newspaper, Grivna. In addition, the articles report on finishes and 
results from sporting events without discussing the national or international significance of the prizes 
or awards. 
Further, the translations for the articles claim that the circulation for Grivna ranges from 52,500 -
60,000. However, the original articles do not contain circulation statistics. Any document in a foreign 
language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The 
translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the 
translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. Because the 
translations include material that is not in the original foreign language documents, the Petitioner did 
not submit complete and accurate English language translations. Regardless, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the circulation statistics from a single newspaper, as well as the country rankings for 
grivna.ka.us, represent widespread media coverage of his awards, signifying nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
For these reasons, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner did not establish that 
he qualifies for the awards 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 allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director found that the Petitioner fulfilled this criterion. This regulatory criterion requires a 
petitioner to show that he has acted as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specialization. 5 For the reasons outlined below, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner 
submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he meets this criterion, and the 
Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a certificate from URF showing his qualification as a 
"Referee of the 1st Category." In addition, the Petitioner offered an income certificate listing his 
positions as "Deputy Chief judge," "Informing referee," "Umpire," and "Referee for participants" at 
five rowing competitions in the Ukraine. Moreover, the Petitioner presented letters indicating his 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
4 
membershij. on "the Regional Judicial Panel in rowing in the city o~._ __ __.I" ~ .... -------~ 
However, the Petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate that he judged or evaluated the work or skills 
of competitors as opposed to enforcing the rules of events and ensuring sportsmanlike competitions. 
In fact, the Petitioner submitted the "Law of Ukraine of Physical Culture and Sports," which defined 
sports refereeing as "individuals who have been trained and have an appropriate level of proficiency 
and are authorized to enforce the rules of sports, regulations of competitions and to ensure the 
reliability of the results recorded." Moreover, the record contains the "On Approval of the Rules of 
Rowing Competitions" for the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine showing that the deputy chief 
judge supervises the work staff: controls the equipment on the distance, arranges the delivery of 
reserve equipment to the start line, ensures the preparation of the competition venues and equipment 
for official ceremonies, determines the location of participants' equipment and specialized vehicles 
placement and storage, and controls the equipment repair. In addition, the main responsibility of the 
referee is "control over the compliance by the participants with rules on the distance." Furthermore, 
.__ _____ _. indicated that as part of the Regional Judicial Panel, the Petitioner attended 
methodological seminars for judges and conducted briefings for judges in accordance with 
qualification requirements. 
Here, although the Petitioner held various positions, such as "Referee" and "Deputy Chief Judge," he 
did not establish that he participated as a judge of the work of others consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. As discussed above, the Petitioner's roles involved enforcing the rules and regulations and 
briefing other judges rather than evaluating the skills of rowers, determining the winners, or otherwise 
judging the work of others. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he participated as a judge of 
the work of others. Accordingly, we withdraw the decision of the Director for this criterion. 
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 finding 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. USCIS 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 not shown that the significance of his athletic work is indicative of the required sustained national 
or international acclaim or that it is 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 has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
5 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 6 The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 As the Petitioner has not demonstrated his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. we need not 
consider whether his entrance will substantially benefit prospectively the United States under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(iii) of 
the Act. 
6