dismissed EB-1A Case: Sailing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 18,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a sailing competitor and coach, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
met 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. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In her appeal, the Petitioner contends that she meets more 
than three criteria based on her awards, association memberships, published material, judging, and 
original contributions. 
UP,on de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate her extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in her field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states: 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-S-
(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 her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, then she 
must provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
However, satisfaction of at least three criteria does not, in and of itself~ establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria , 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D .G. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), af('d , 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir·. 2012); Matter ofChawath e, 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 U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that she is "a highly decorated sailor in national, and international 
classes of yachts, and a successful sailing coach." The record includes a 2016 letter from 
the chairman of the racing and sailing school committees at the in 
New York, indicating that the club intends to employ her as a. sailing competitor and coach. The 
Director found that the Petitioner met the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) , but 
had not satisfied any of the other criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that she meets the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the published materi al 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) , and 
the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
1 
We have reviewed the entire 
1 
Although she previously claimed eligibility for the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) , 
on appeal the Petition er does not contest the Director 's determination, offer further arguments, or submit additional 
evidence for this criterion on appeal , nor does the record support a finding that she meets it. Accordingly , we will not 
address the criterion in this deci sion. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-S-
record of proceedings, and it does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not established that she has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three ofthe alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or award~· for excellence in the .field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence indicating ,that she won first place in multiple Russian sailing 
competitions between 2006 and 2011, such as the and the 
She also provided media coverage of the competitions indicating that the awards are nationally 
recognized in her sport. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established that she meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in assocwtzons in the .field for vvhich 
classffication is sought, 111hich 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). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. For the reasons 
outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary evidence 
showing that she meets the plain language of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner submitted her 2015-2016 membership card for but she did not provide 
evidence showing that the association requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged 
by recognized national or international experts in the sport. She also offered a January 2006 
certificate from the with an accompanying 
English language translation stating that she was "awarded the 
'" The Petitioner provided an English language document entitled 
"Requirements and conditions for awarding the but the record does 
not include the original document in the Russian language from the 
Without the original Russian language document, the information provided lacks probative value. 
Regardless, the Petitioner's is an award, and not 
documentation of her membership in an association in the field. 
The Petitioner also provided a June 2015 letter from president of the 
in Russia, stating that the Petitioner "is an active member" of 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-S-
and that, "[i]n compliance with the membership is granted to 
athletes and/or coaches of good moral character and bearers of the titles 
or However, the record does not include a copy of 
regulations to support statement. Statements made without supporting 
documentation are of limited probative value and are not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm 'r 1998) 
(citing lvfatter ofTreasure Craft o.fCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' ! Comm 'r 1972)). While the 
Petitioner submitted her ' certificate, the documentation offered does not 
demonstrate that requires outstanding achievements of its members , as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in sailing. For these reasons, the Pet.itioner has not demonstrated that 
she meets this regulatory 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 necesswy 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted a 2015 article about her in newspaper 
m websit'e states that its online 
newspaper attracts "1 08,000 unique visitors monthly" or "3,600 unique visitors daily" and the 
newspaper's media kit lists an "estimated 61,000 weekly readership," but the record does not include 
documentary evidence showing that the aforementioned visitors and readership immbers elevate the 
newspaper to a form of major media relative to other online news sources. 2 
The Petitioner also provided an 2009 article in entitled ' 
However , the 
article only briefly mentions the Petitioner and is instead about v1s1t 
to the and the award ceremony he presided over in which 50 
students received scholarships. The plain language of the regulatory criterion requires "published 
material about the alien." Articles that are not about the Petitioner do not meet this regulatory 
criterion. See, e.g , Negro-Plumpe v. Okin. 2:07-CV-00820 at *l , *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). Furthermore, although the 
Petitioner submitted a webpage indicating that has a circulation of 18,000, she 
did not 
provide documentary evidence demonstrating that such circulation qualifies the newspaper as 
a form of major media. 
The record also included two 2007 articles posted on the website entitled 
'' and " The articles first discuss the 
sailing competition and then list the Petitioner's name in the "results" section among numerous other 
2 In addition, we note that USC IS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 
SJO , ajf'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A .9) (concluding that USCIS did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the 
cover of a magazine as to the magazine 's status as major media) . 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-S-
participants. Neither of those articles are about the Petitioner, and the record does not contain 
evidence shmving that the website is a form of major media. 
' J 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an article in entitled ' 
but the date and author were not identified as required by this 
regulatory criterion. Moreover, the article is not about the Petitioner and the record lacks 
documentation demonstrating that equates to a form of major media. Likewise, 
the Petitioner provided a 2006 untitled "archive" entry posted on an unidentified website, 
but the author of the material was not provided and the record does not contain evidence showing 
that the website is a form of major media. 
The Petitioner also offered a 2008 article appearing on the website entitled 
is about the Petitioner, its author was not identified and 
as a form of major media. The Petitioner further submitted a 
the website entitled ' 
While the aforementioned article 
has not been shown to qualify 
2011 article appearing on 
While a significant part of the article is about the Petitioner, 
the author was not identified and the record does not include evidence showing that the 
website is a form of major media. 
Lastly, the Petitioner provided a 2008 article appearing on the website of 
entitled ' However, the miicle is about the 
sailing championship in and not the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that 
is "published not only in Russia but also in Germany and the United States, 
and serves a significant readership," but she does not point to specific evidence in the record to 
support her statement. Accordingly, she has not satisfied her burden of proof. See Matter ofSoffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In light of the above, thePetitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation. either individually or on a panel. as a judge qf 
the ·work of others in the same or an allied field of spec?fzcation for lvhich 
class~(ication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner provided1 her judging logbook from and a letter 
from president of the listing the various competitions where she participated as a 
sailing judge. As such, the Petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien "s original scient{fic. scholarly. artistic, athletic. or business­
related contributions o.fmajor sign(ficance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner offered four reference letters, three scholarship 
awards "for excellence in academic performance," and a certificate of recognition "for significant 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-S-
contribution to the development of athletics and excellent representation of the 
at athletic competitions." The Petitioner's scholarship aw·ards and certificate of 
recognition based on her activities at are more relevant to the awards category of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), a separate and distinct criterion that she has already satisfied. Because 
separate criteria exist for awards and original contributions of major significance in the field, USC IS 
does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that an individual meet at 
least three separate criteria. Nonetheless, the record does not establish that the aforementioned 
awards were indicative of the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In his letter of support, a former champion who 
resides in Russia, and presently coaches at the stated: 
"[The Petitioner] became a coach at our yacht club while she was at She related both her 
practical skills and the theoretical knowledge she acquired at the university. The athletes she 
prepared showed fast positive results .... " In addition, noted that "other coaches 
became interested in her innovative coaching methodology," and that he "was among those coaches 
who benefited from [the Petitioner's] ideas." However, he did not identify her innovative 
methodologies or original ideas and explain how they were of major significance in the field of 
coaching or the sport of sailing. 
and from the at 
offered two jointly signed letters of support. In their first letter, and 
listed the Petitioner's awards from and indicated that she graduated "with a degree and the 
qualification of They further stated that the Petitioner 
"actively participated in seminars and conferences and managed to combine her academic duties 
with her extensive career as an athlete." The second letter identified three research articles authored 
by the Petitioner, entitled " 
and" 
and indicated that the Petitioner's "papers were 
considered original contribution [sic] in the field of and were published 
in the ' Although publication of the Petitioner's research work 
indicates that she has added to the pool of knowledge in her field, the record lacks documentary 
evidence showing that her methods have affected the sport in a major way, that her techniques have 
been \Videly USed to train sailing cCOmpetitorS, Or that her WOrk has otherwise risen to the level of 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter of support from "senior 
coach of the Russia. states: "I 
learned about the method of preparation of sportsmen, which [the Petitioner] offered in her scientific 
work. This innovative approach has made a very big impression on me. This was something 
completely new and I decided to test her method of training." then lists the three 
research articles that the Petitioner authored at and indicates that her "technique works 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-S-
successfully with a team." However, did not offer specific examples of how the 
Petitioner's training techniques have affected the field or are otherwise commensurate with athletic 
contributions of major significance in the sport of sailing. 
We note that the reference letters offered under this criterion were limited to the Petitioner's colleagues 
fron Russia. We have addressed their specific affirmations above. Generalized conclusory 
statements th<;1.t do not identify specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative 
value. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit 
conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated statements 
are insufficient See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35; lvfatter o[Caron Int'l. Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought). Without additional, 
specific evidence showing that her work has been unusually influential, has substantially impacted 
her sport, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance in the 
field, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the evidence provided satisfies only two of the regulatory criteria. If the 
Petitioner had included the requisite material under at least three evidentiary categories, our next 
step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the submissions in the context of 
whether she has achieved: (I) a "level of expertise indicating that [she] is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, " and (2) "that the [petitioner] has 
sustained national or international acclaim" and that her "achievements have been recognized in the 
field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. However, 
because the Petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that she has not satisfied the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting initial evidence set forth at 8 C .F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See 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 record in the aggregate 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner has achieved the level of expertise required for this 
classification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Accordingly, she has not established 
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). 
7 
Matter of R-S-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-S-, ID# 134825 (AAO Jan. 18, 2017) 
J 
8