dismissed EB-1A Case: Soccer

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U S Citizenship and Immigration Semices 
Ofice ofAdm~nrstratrve Appeals MS 2090 
idedfyi"$ l1.a iclited Lo 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prevent c!Gi!y un;.ver! antec 
invasion of p~~na\ privacy 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
IN RE: 
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. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
ting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
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 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
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 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 8 
C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3): 
Initial evidence: 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. Such evidence shall include 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award), or at 
least three of the following: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
Page 3 
(ii) 
 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; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) 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; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This petition, filed on July 16, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in soccer. The record reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since 
May 29, 2005. Given the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the 
current date (over four years), it is reasonable to expect him to have earned national acclaim in the 
United States during that time. He has had ample time to establish a reputation in this country. 
The petitioner's initial submission consisted of the Form 1-140 with no supplemental evidence. The 
director thereafter issued a Request for Evidence ("WE") dated March 6, 2008, wherein he 
requested additional information within twelve weeks from the date of the WE. In response to the 
RFE, on June 6, 2008, the petitioner requested an additional two months to provide supporting 
documentation because he claimed that his attorney was laid off for misconduct after the filing of his 
initial petition. With regard to the director's issuance of a WE, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 103.2(b)(8)(iii) permits the petitioner to respond "within a specified period of time as determined 
Page 4 
by USCIS." As the regulations do not mandate any specific period of time in which to afford a 
petitioner the opportunity to respond to an WE, the director does not have to honor a petitioner's 
request for additional time. Further, as a Form G-28 was never submitted by any attorney, additional 
time was not warranted. Nonetheless, the petitioner has since supplemented the record on appeal as 
of August 14, 2008 (more than five months following the WE), and therefore it would serve no 
useful purpose to remand the case simply to afford the petitioner the opportunity to supplement the 
record with new evidence. 
As the petitioner failed to provide any supporting evidence in response to the WE, the director 
denied the petition on June 16, 2008, finding that the petitioner had not established his eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
On appeal, the petitioner provided a document confirming he was a soccer player in the Youth 
Section of his team, Septemvri, from 1990 through 1999. The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
the New Bulgarian University stating that he was a member of the university soccer team from 1999 
through 2005. In addition, the petitioner provided his resume detailing his skills, playing history, 
awards, and coaching experience. He also submitted two photographs, one of his trophies and one 
of himself with his team, Septemvri. This evidence failed to demonstrate that the petitioner has 
earned sustained acclaim at the national or international level. 
In order to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the petitioner must provide: 
Documentation of the alien> membership in associations in the field for which 
classlJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criteria, the petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, 
do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. 
Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership 
requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. The record does not include evidence 
(such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that Septemvri or the New 
Bulgarian University soccer team requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in soccer. Accordingly, the petitioner has not met this 
criterion. 
In order to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the petitioner must provide: 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted his resume which cited various awards that he has purportedly 
won. He also provided a photograph of his trophies. However, the inscriptions on the trophies could 
not be read as the picture of them was small. Additionally, translations were not provided to identify 
the awards or to confirm that they were awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner also provided a 
picture of himself with his team, after allegedly winning first place in a Bulgarian 
National Soccer Championship. 
No evidence was provided to show that these prizes constitute nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes for excellence in the petitioner's field, such as supporting evidence showing the 
prestige associated with receiving the awards or some other evidence consistent with national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field of endeavor and the petitioner has the burden to establish every element of this 
criterion. The record lacks general information about the awards, such as the award criteria, the area 
from where participants were drawn, the number of entrants, or the percentage of entrants who 
earned some type of recognition. 
As discussed previously, the statute and regulations require the beneficiary's national or international 
acclaim to be sustained. The two photographs provided by the petitioner do not indicate the dates 
that he received these awards. Although no independent evidence was provided, the petitioner's 
resume lists the dates of his receipt of various awards. As most of the petitioner's awards appear to 
have been received a decade prior to the filing of his petition, assuming he has actually received 
these awards, he cannot establish sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 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 qualifl as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established his eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.