dismissed EB-1A Case: Sailing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 9, 2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE 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 of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker. The Petitioner appealed the denial to this office and we dismissed it. She then filed joint 
motions to reopen and reconsider the matter, which we denied. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider our previous decision. The Petitioner maintains 
that in addition to meeting the criteria relating to her receipt of prizes or awards and participation as a 
judge, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iv), she also satisfies the membership in associations criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). She further states that she is eligible for the classification. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at 
the time ofthe decision. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(3). It must state the reasons for reconsideration and be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application oflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. !d. 
To qualify for the classification, a petitioner must establish that he or she has extraordinary ability 
which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the 
Act. 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). 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 
.
Matter of R-S-
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 submits 
qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will then 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. 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
In dismissing the appeal, we found that the Petitioner met the criteria for lesser national awards at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)_2 In support of her joint motions. 
the Petitioner maintained that she also met the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). the 
published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the original contributions criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). She further argued that she qualified as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Upon review, we determined that the 
evidence did not support a finding that she met at least three criteria. Moreover, in a final merits 
determination, we considered the record in its entirety and concluded that she did not establish the 
level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
In the instant motion, the Petitioner requests reconsideration of our finding regarding the 
membership criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Specifically. she argues that we erred in our prior 
decision by imposing additional evidentiary requirements beyond those required by the regulation, 
and claims that she meets this criterion by a preponderance of the evidence. 
The Petitioner relies on a reference letter from coach of the 
As discussed in our previous decision, although 
a member of the and then the 
confirmed that she ''was 
· he 
provided no information regarding the teams' membership requirements or their athlete selection 
process. Because his letter did not include sufficient information and the record did not demonstrate 
that the aforementioned teams required outstanding achievements of their members. as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. we determined that the Petitioner did not meet this 
criterion. 
1 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 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.C. 2013); Rijal v. US'CIS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. 
Wash. 2011), ajf'd, 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 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''). 
2 Our decision also withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner met the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
2 
.
Matter of R-S-
The Petitioner asserts that our finding on the membership criterion is erroneous, and argues that 
requiring the teams' membership requirements or further details regarding the athlete selection 
process went beyond the evidentiary requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Relying on a 
USCIS policy memorandum, she asserts that imposing such additional requirements was erroneous, 
maintaining that "novel substantive requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations may not 
be unilaterally imposed." See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation (?f Evidence 
Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions: Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFlvf) 
Chapter 22.2. AFM Update ADJJ-14 4, 20 (Dec. 22, 2010). 3 We disagree with the Petitioner's 
assertions. 
The regulation specifies that to demonstrate her membership meets this criterion, the Petitioner must 
show that the youth national team or national team requires outstanding achievements of its members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). It is the 
Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that she meets every element of a given criterion, including that she 
is a member of a team that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o{ Skirball 
Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012) (it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for 
the immigration benefit sought). In this regard, evidence demonstrating the selection criteria for these 
teams, and whether recognized national or international experts have judged team members' 
achievements, is not a "novel substantive requirement" as the Petitioner asserts, but rather, specific 
evidence required under the criterion. 
Here, aside from letter confirming her membership on the aforementioned teams, 
the Petitioner has provided no evidence of the membership requirements of either team, or whether 
membership is judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). We will not presume the Petitioner satisfies this criterion based 
solely on her position on a national team. The record as constituted contains insutlicient evidence 
regarding the selection process for the national teams discussed above. As such, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner also maintains that she meets the membership criterion because of her designation of 
She claims that the designation is not a prize or award, but "the highest possible 
designation for athletes in the country." As discussed in our decision dismissing the Petitioner's 
appeal, although a January 2006 certificate from the 
states that she was "awarded the Title 
the record does not demonstrate that her designation constitutes membership in an 
association in the field. Moreover, although she provided an English language document entitled 
"Requirements and conditions for awarding the title ' dated September 
2013, the record does not include the original document in the Russian language from the 
or illustrate how the 2013 document relates to her 2006 designation. 
3 See https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
.
Matter of R-S-
The Petitioner submitted an excerpt from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, stating that 
is "a sports title in the which is "assigned by the federal 
executive authority in the field of As noted in our prior decision 
denying her joint motions, this excerpt does not describe the eligibility criteria for athletes. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the evidentiary value of this submission, as there are 
no assurances about the reliability of the content from Wikipedia, an open, user-edited website.4 
See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910 (8th Cir. 2008). 
The record also contains a June 2015 letter from president of the 
confirming that the Petitioner ''is an active member." In 
addition, she submitted her membership application for the containing her personal 
information along with a certified English language translation, but there is no date indicating when 
the application was prepared or submitted. Although the record contains a copy of 
regulations, which state that "Individual members of the may be natural persons over 18 
years of age who have the title of and candidate and have an 
excellent reputation in the field of sailing," the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that a 
designation or its candidacy, or having ''an excellent reputation in the tield of 
sailing,'' is commensurate with outstanding achievements in her spoti. The record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's designation as or her membership in the aforementioned teams 
and associations, requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in competitive sailing. For these reasons, she has not shown that we erred in 
our previous finding that she did not satisfy this criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that we erred in our final merits determination, maintaining that the 
totality of the evidence demonstrates that she is an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
Specifically, she relies on previously submitted media coverage of her athletic career and her 
authorship of research papers and coaching methodologies, stating that this evidence provides the 
"necessary context" for her outstanding accomplishments and exceptional athletic career. 
As noted in the final merits determination discussion in our prior decision, the Petitioner otTered 
several media reports mentioning her competitive sailing results, but did not demonstrate that any of 
the articles appeared in major media. Moreover, we noted that the majority of the articles were not 
4 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
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. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General~ disclaimer, accessed on November 2, 2017 (emphasis in original). copy 
incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
4 
.
Matter of R-S-
about her specifically, but rather about the sport in general or particular competitions. In addition. 
despite claiming that media reports about her aired on numerous television channels, she submitted 
no supporting evidence demonstrating that the shows actually featured her or that they appeared in 
major media. Finally, the media coverage submitted, aside from one 2015 article. was almost 
exclusively restricted to 2011 and earlier, years before she filed her petition, thus does not support 
her claim that she has sustained national or international acclaim in her sport. 
With regard to her coaching methodologies and authorship of research papers, she did not establish 
the significance of her work in the field of sailing or that her publication record sets her apart 
through a career of acclaimed work. Despite reference letters discussing her work, we found that 
they were from her colleagues from Russia, and did not show that others have frequently cited 
her articles in her field or otherwise demonstrate a level of interest in her work commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the top of her field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The record does not establish that her work has been unusually 
influential, has substantially impacted her sport, or has otherwise risen to the level of major 
significance in the field. 
Finally, while the Petitioner categorizes the aforementioned reference letters and media coverage as 
"comparable evidence," she has not illustrated that the documents satisfy any of the ten criteria or 
qualify as "comparable evidence." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), (4). Specifically. she has not 
demonstrated that any of the criteria do not readily apply to her occupation or that the submitted 
evidence is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. The referenced evidence also does not confirm her 
sustained national or international acclaim or her status as being at the very top of the sport. 
Accordingly, she has not supplied persuasive comparable evidence or established we erred in our 
final merits determination. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets at least three of the criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Moreover, her arguments on motion do not establish that our previous findings 
were based on an incorrect application of the law, regulation, or USC IS policy, nor does the motion 
demonstrate that our latest decision was erroneous based on the evidence before us at the time of the 
decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter o{R-S-, ID# 907221 (AAO Nov. 9, 2017) 
5