dismissed EB-1A Case: Rugby Coaching

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servic es 
Admini strative Appeal s Office (AAO) 
20 Massachus etts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washing ton, DC 20529 -2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: OCT 2 3 lOB Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
RE: 
APPLICATION: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursu ant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). 
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 
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:Uwww.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 yo~ 
l!fSh Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative 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 (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
According to parts 2 and 6 of the July 14, 2011 petition, the petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, 
seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics as a rugby team coach, pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
The director 
determined that the petitioner has not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section§ 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel files a Form I-290B (Notice of Appeal or Motion), an addendum, an appellate 
brief and supporting documents, most of which counsel had previously filed. For the reasons 
discussed below, the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification 
sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not shown evidence of his one-time achievement that is a 
major, internationally recognized award, under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or that he 
meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 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 are at 
the very top of the field and he has not sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 
204.5(h) (2), (3). Accordingly, the AAO will dismiss the petitioner ' s appeal. 
I. THE 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 iri 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, 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
United States 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 
101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through 
evidence of a one-time achievement, that is a major, internationally 
recognized award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.s~ Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld 
the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have ·raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement ofthree types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this case, the AAO affirms the 
director's finding that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting at least three types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field, or 
has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The court in Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002), concluded that competitive 
athletics and coaching are not within the same area of expertise. Specifically, the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" 
as working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not 
necessarily in any profession in that field. For example , Lee's extraordinary ability as 
a baseball player does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions 
or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. The 
regulations regarding this preference classification are extremely restrictive, and not 
expanding "area" to include everything within a particular field cannot be considered 
unreasonable. 
Id. at 918. 
In this case, the evidence in the record shows that the petitioner was a rugby player who became a 
rugby coach in 2002 and, thus, has had several years to develop his reputation as a coach. As the 
petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as a rugby coach, he must present at 
least three types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) relating to his role 
as a rugby coach, and demonstrate that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in 
the field, or has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, as a ruby coach. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can establish his sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor by 
presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In 
counsel's July 13, 2011 letter that he initially filed in support of the petition, he asserted that the 
petitioner's qualifying one-time achievement was his appointment as a "Delegation Leader and 
Team Manager of the 
France." In 
response to the director's request for evidence (RFE) and on appeal, counsel no longer 
asserts that the petitioner's involvement is evidence of a 
qualifying one-time achievement. Instead, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this requirement 
based on: (1) "his introduction to and audience with 
2 The petitioner does not claim that he meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
_ on November 4, 2004 during their visit to and (2) the petitioner 
"being named as Honorary Referee for the '' In his Form I-290B addendum, 
counsel points to a document entitled "Personal Information Sheet," that the 
issued: a September 10, 2009 letter from Dr. President of the 
petitioner worked as an 
petitioner's credentials. 
a certificate certifying that the 
and the 
None of these documents establish that the petitiOner has received a major, internationally 
recognized award. First, the petitioner has not provided any evidence showing that an invitation to 
meet constitutes an award. The petitioner has also not shown 
that being named an ' constitutes an award. 
Second, the petitioner has provided insufficient evidence relating to what criteria one must meet to 
be invited to meet . or how many people were invited to meet 
them on November 4, 2004. Although counsel asserts in part 3 of the Form I-290B that the 
"Personal Information Sheet" and 2009 letter from Dr. provide information relating to the 
requirements for the petitioner's invitation to meet a review of 
these documents does not support counsel's assertion. Specifically, the "Personal Information 
Sheet," as its name suggests, relates to the personal information of the petitioner that was provided to 
the for the It makes no mention 
of an invitation to meet Similarly, although Dr. s 
2009 letter mentions the petitioner's appointment as the Team Manager and Leader of the 
in 2003, it makes no mention of an 
invitation, or more specifically, the requirements for someone to be invited to meet 
Third, the petitioner's supporting evidence, a certificate and credentials, does not 
establish that serving as an ' ' at the constitutes 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. Specifically, the evidence does not include the 
requirements that a person must meet to become an honorary referee at the event. The record lacks 
information relating to how the organizing committee nominates or selects honorary referees, or how 
many people served as honorary referees at the event. 
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 (Sept. 19, 1990). Congress' example of a 
one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. /d. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, 
stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser internationally recognized award could serve to meet only 
one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. See 8 C.F.R. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel 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. While an internationally recognized award could 
conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from 
the example provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally 
recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
In this case, the petitioner has not shown through his evidence that either his 2004 invitation to meet 
or his serving as an honorary referee at the 
constitutes an award, or, more specifically, a major, internationally recognized award at a level 
similar to that of the Nobel Prize. Barring the petitioner's receipt of such an award, the regulation 
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which the petitioner must be satisfied for the beneficiary to meet 
the basic eligibility requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the same documents the AAO discussed above - the "Personal 
Information Sheet," Dr. s 2009 letter, the certificate and credentials -
also establish that the petitioner's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. In addition, counsel asserts: 
As for requirements for the awards or prizes received, the nature of these awards or 
prizes are such that they traditionally or historically have recognized excellence 
without requiring or publishing any particular defined elements for the receipt 
thereof, just general excellence or high achievements. Audiences with 
... have been awarded over many years to numerous persons for 
excellence or high achievements in many varied fields or endeavor without ever 
having defined or published any particular requirements for same, just as naming as 
an honorary referee to world games of any sport is a recognition of general excellence 
and high achievement in that sport. 
Counsel's assertions, without any supporting evidence in the record, do not establish that the 
petitioner has met this criterion. As noted, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. In short, the record lacks evidence relating to what 
requirements, if any, a person must meet to be invited to meet 
at the November 2004 event or to become an honorary referee at the 2005 World Games. The 
record also lacks evidence that the petitioner's field nationally or internationally recognizes the 
invitation and appointment as awards for excellence in the field, such as trade or general media 
coverage of royal invitations and honorary referee appointments. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
In his appellate brief, counsel relies on information provided on wikipedia.com to support his 
assertion that the petitioner meets this criterion. There are no assurances, however, about the 
reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.3 See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 
909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008). As such, evidence from this site is not probative evidence. 
Finally, the record includes evidence of the petitioner's receipt of other awards, including, but not 
limiting to, a Coach Award the issued to the petitioner on September 25, 2004; 
a Referee Award the _ _ issued to the petitioner on September 23, 
2005; a Preliminary Award the _ _ issued to the petitioner on October 21, 
1982; and a dated August 24, 2005. On appeal, however, counsel has not specifically 
challenged the director's finding that these awards do not constitute nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence. As such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he 
did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States 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. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he 
failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, counsel contends that the petitioner meets this criterion because he received: (1) a 
trainer license, (2) an 
Award, (3) a 
3 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer entitled "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO 
GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" : 
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, . that is, a voluntary association of 
individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of 
the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that 
nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you 
with complete, accurate or reliable information . 
. . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given 
article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not 
correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields .... 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, accessed on October 11, 2013, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
issued to the petitioner, (4) a Preliminary Award the 
issued to the petitioner, and (5) a Level 2 Certificate of Success and Diploma 
the ~ issued to the petitioner. In addition, counsel contends that the 
petitioner's membership in (1) the and (2) meets 
this criterion. 
The evidence in the record does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. The supporting 
evidence establishes that the petitioner completed a number of training courses and received a 
number of awards. Counsel asserts in his Form I-290B addendum that "all but one (1) of [the 
certificate or award issuing organizations] are on the national or international level, and in which 
membership is by the nomination of the associations' board members or officers and includes prior 
written and oral examinations, who are the highest and only recognized experts in the field." In his 
June 3, 2012 letter, Vice President of _ 
states that "to sustain (the petitioner's llevel of expertise in his sport," Mr. "nominated [the 
petitioner] repeated! y to partake in training and examination 
courses." The letter further provides that Mr. nominated the petitioner "as one of the 
selected referees during the ' and that the petitioner "was chosen 
by the as part of a panel in national Referee courses held in 
where he evaluated and men to red new referees." 
Neither this letter nor any other evidence in the record shows that the petitioner is a member of any 
association that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. Specifically, without documents relating to 
membership requirements for any of the associations, the petitioner has not shown what any of the 
organizations requires from its members or if any of them requires outstanding achievements, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Moreover, 
the petitioner has not shown that he is/was a member of any of the organizations. The training 
certificates, licenses and awards do not indicate that the petitioner is/was a member of the issuing 
organization. The record lacks documents, such as membership certificates or letters from the 
organizations, showing that the petitioner is/was a member. The record also lacks evidence 
establishing that only members of the issuing organizations may receive training certificates, 
licenses or awards. In addition, licensure is a criterion for aliens of exceptional ability, a lesser 
classification. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii)(C). It is not a criterion for aliens of extraordinary 
ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Similarly, although the record contains evidence showing the petitioner's membership in the 
the record lacks evidence relating to the membership requirements of 
either organization. As such, the petitioner has not shown that either organization requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as required by the plain language of the criterion. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Finally, the record includes evidence of the petitioner's involvement with other rugby organizations. 
On appeal, however, counsel has not specifically challenged the director's adverse findings that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
petitioner's involvement in those other organizations does not meet this criterion. As such, the 
petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 
1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of his 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. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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). 
On appeal, counsel contends that the petitioner meets this criterion because the May 22, 2010 article 
was published in "a national and international trade publication, a 
internet web-site dedicated to the sport of rugby" and the article is "about the 
_ 'dominated' by the team coached by the 
petitioner and contained only one photograph, that of the petitioner." Counsel then asserts that the 
article 
' and a 2004 untitled article were published 
in the which is "a major national news publication." Counsel further 
asserts that the September 2011 article entitled _ _ _ ' was published on 
"a web-based publication serving 234 U.S. markets and 6 Canadian markets, with 
18.6 Mio [sic] readers monthly." 
The evidence in the record does not show that the petitioner has met this criterion. First, the 
petitioner has not shown that ' _ _ is about 
the petitioner, relating to his work. Indeed, the article does not mention the petitioner by name other 
than a photography credit for the photograph of an athlete. Moreover, the record lacks evidence 
relating to the website that published the article, from which the AAO may determine if the website 
constitutes a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Second, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence showing that either the 
or is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. Although 
counsel asserts in the Form I-290B addendum that the is a major news 
publication and that "serv[es] 234 U.S. markets and 6 Canadian markets, with 18.6 
Mio [sic] readers monthly," neither counsel nor the petitioner has provided any evidence to support 
these assertions. Indeed, the record lacks any evidence relating to the or 
including the nature of each publication or the reach or size of the readership. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Moreover , the petitioner has not provided any 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
information relating to the author of either of the articles, as required by the plain 
language of the criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Furthermore, the petitioner has not shown 
that the examiner.com article, which consists of four sentences and mentions the petitioner's name 
once, is about the petitioner, relating to his work. Notably, the author's byline on the 
article indicates that he works for the The national or international - . 
accessibility of a parent publication's internet site is not determinative , at issue is the readership of 
the subset of webpages on that posted the article. 
Finally, the record includes evidence of other published material, including, but not limiting to, 
material published in On appeal, however, 
counsel has not specifically challenged the director's finding that these articles are insufficient to 
show the petitioner meets this criterion. As such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did 
not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011, 2011 WL 4711885 at 
*9. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented published material about him in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, relating to his work in the field for which classification is 
sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
On appeal, counsel contends that the petitioner meets this criterion because he served as an honorary 
referee at the Citing counsel 
asserts that a referee is "a sports official usually having final authority in administering a game." 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner. however, has provided any information relating to the petitioner's 
duties at the as one of its honorary referees. Indeed, the record contains no 
evidence showing what exactly the petitioner did at the As such, although 
according to the definition provided by counsel a referee "usually ha[ s] final authority in 
administering a game" (emphasis added), the record lacks evidence establishing that at the 
the petitioner, as an honorary referee, participated as a judge of the work of others in 
the same or an allied field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of his participation, either individually or on a 
panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion. As supporting evidence , counsel 
points to: (1) a December 16, 2004 letter from National Trainer of 
(b)(6)
------~--------- - - ----· --
Page 11 
Mr. 
of 
sponsorship. 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(2) a 2009 letter from Dr. (3) a September 22, 2009 letter from Dr. 
Chairman of ~ . (4) a 2011 letter from 
and (5) two letters, both dated December 
5, 1989, from the petitioner to the Chairman 
expressing appreciation for accommodations and 
The evidence in the record does not show that the petitioner has met this criterion. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner has been involved in the sport of rugby as a player, manager, referee and 
coach over the years, including serving as the Team Manager and Leader for the 
the team coach for the 
and a tour manager for _ The evidence does not establish 
that the petitioner has made any contribution to the sport of rugby as a whole , that is either original 
or that is of major significance. Indeed, none of the evidence in the record discusses or even 
mentions the petitioner 's contributions to the sport of rugby as a whole as either original- such that 
he is the first person or one of the first people to have made the contributions , or of major 
significance - such that the contributions significantly affected the sport. The petitioner has not 
shown that his involvement in the sport is either original or of major significance. Indeed, other than 
making the conclusory statement that the evidence establishes that the petitioner meets this criterion, 
counsel has provided no legal or factual basis for his assertion. Merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associat es, 
Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly, 
users need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. V . United States Att'y Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, counsel asserts in the Form I-290B addendum that the petitioner meets this criterion 
because he served as the "Team Manager and Delegation Leader for the 
' and as an "Honorary Referee at the 
The evidence in the record does not establish that the petitioner has met this criterion. First, the 
petitioner has not shown that the 
constitutes an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner has provided insufficient evidence relating to the reputation of the 
_ event, or whether it is distinguished or not. Moreover, the petitioner has not 
shown that he has performed a leading or critical role for the as a 
whole, rather than for one competition in 2003. Specifically, the evidence does not establish the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
petitioner's further involvement with the event. The 
petitioner's curriculum vitae does not indicate any further involvement. 
Second, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence showing what exactly he did as an 
honorary referee at the The record lacks information relating to the total 
number of honorary referees at the event, how many matches, if any, the petitioner participated as an 
honorary referee, or what role honorary referees played at the Moreover, the 
petitioner has not shown that the constitutes an organization or establishment 
that has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has provided insufficient evidence relating to the 
reputation of the 
Finally, the record includes evidence of the petitioner's involvement in other organizations and 
establishments, including, but not limiting to the . and the 
_ On appeal, however, counsel has not specifically maintained that the 
petitioner's involvement in these organizations or establishments meets this criterion. As such, the 
petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 
1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Accordingly, the AAQ finds that the petitioner has not presented evidence that the beneficiary has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation. The petitioner has not met this criterion. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
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 have 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 international 
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. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top 
of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion 
in a final merits determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to 
4 The AAO maintains 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 proceeding, the AAO maintains 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)(1)(ii); see also INA 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (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).