dismissed EB-1A Case: Synchronized Swimming

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF X-Z-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 22, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a synchronized swimmer 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)(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not satisfied any of the regulatory criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and argues that she meets at least three 
criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of X-Z-
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 a one­
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Alternately, he or she must 
provide 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. U5;CJS, 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.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 
2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a synchronized swimmer who has participated in national and international 
competitions, and who has recently been hired as the head coach of in 
Arizona. As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director determined that the Petitioner intended to work in the United States as a synchronized 
swimming coach. He therefore discounted her documentary evidence relating to her as a 
synchronized swimmer and found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the regulatory criteria. We 
disagree with the Director's analysis on this issue. Here, the record reflects that she not only intends 
to coach synchronized swimmers, but she also plans to compete and perform in synchronized 
swimming events. For instance, in her cover letters at the initial filing of the petition and in response 
to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner detailed her plans to compete, perform, 
and coach. In addition, the record is supported by evidence showing that the Petitioner has not 
restricted her field to the area of coaching but rather to a diverse aspect of synchronized swimming 
2 
.
Matter of X-Z-
such as competing, performing, judging, and coaching. Accordingly, we will evaluate the totality of 
the Petitioner's documentary evidence as it relates to the area of synchronized swimming. 1 
The Petitioner provided evidence of her receipt of lesser internationally recognized awards for 
excellence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), such as her place team finishes at the 
and Further, the record reflects that she served as at the 
. meeting the judging criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). In addition, the Petitioner authored a scholarly article in the 
. establishing eligibility for the scholarly articles criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the Petitioner has met at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner 
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and 
that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final 
merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability 
in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her 
eligibility. 
The Petitioner provided evidence of her synchronized swimming awards from competitions in China 
from Starting in , the Petitioner finished in place in the ' 
' at the Over the 
course of the next 1 0 years, the Petitioner medaled as part of a team in the 
the . and other exhibitions. On the international 
stage, the Petitioner's teams won place at the and place at the 
In the United States, the Petitioner individually finished in fifth place at the 
The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that such 
achievements have garnered her sustained national or international acclaim and that they reflect a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 
1 Further, we note that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) provides: 
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international acclaim as an athlete 
and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching/managing at a national level, adjudicators can 
consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and 
extraordinary ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of 
expertise. 
AFM ch. 22.22(i)( I )(C) emphasis in original). 
.
Matter of X-Z-
(Sept. 19, 1990). In the case here, the Petitioner has not established that she received any awards 
since Furthermore, besides the she has not 
shown that she has participated in any national or international events for the past two years, or has 
successfully competed against the top synchronized swimmers, reflecting that she "is one of that 
small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.'' See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
Similarly, the Petitioner submitted a letter from coach for the 
who stated that the Petitioner was on the that won place at the 
and place at the Although Coach indicated that 
"many competitors of both [the] and [were] finalists in the : 
' the record does not reflect, nor does the Petitioner claim, that she competed at the 
Rather, the Petitioner has been recently swimming at the against 
other collegiate athletes. She has not shown that she has been competing with renowned or 
accomplished synchronized swimmers, demonstrating that her latest "achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that her recent press coverage in major media in and 
"shows her continued popularity in her home country of China," referencing a television interview 
with the regarding her being a for the 
and an article from the relating to her debut as a 
at the However, she has not 
shown that the content of the media coverage, which discusses her involvement in youth 
competitions, is indicative of a level of success consistent with being among "that small percentage 
who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Although the 
Petitioner provided other screenshots from news outlets' websites from 2010-2013 relating to the 
where the Petitioner is either not mentioned or is listed as a team member, she did not 
demonstrate that she received media attention that is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 
With regard to her judging experience, as indicated above, the Petitioner participated as for 
the . The 
competition, however, is 
among juniors and youths. An evaluation of the significance of the Petitioner's judging experience 
is acceptable under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11, to determine if such evidence is indicative of the 
extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. The Petitioner has not shown 
that her single judging experience sets her apart from others in her field, such as by providing 
evidence that she has served as of acclaimed synchronized swimmers or of a prestigious 
national or international competition, such as at the Olympics, rather than children or amateurs at 
local competitions. Accordingly, the evidence under this criterion does not support a finding that 
4 
.
Matter of X-Z-
she "is one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Pertaining to her artistic display as a performer, the Petitioner presented an invitation letter from the 
for her "to participate in the performance of l 
" at the in China. As it is expected that a synchronized swimmer, such as the 
Petitioner, would perform in a water show, we will evaluate the extent to which the display of her 
work is reflective of acclaim consistent with this classification. Here, while the Petitioner was 
invited to perform, the record does not indicate whether she actually participated as a swimmer at the 
attraction. Regardless, the Petitioner did not establish that such an invitation is ref1ective of being 
one of the small percentage at the top of her field, or that her exhibitions garnered attention in a 
manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. She did not show, for example, 
that her performances brought praise from critics, drew notable crowds, raised attendance, or were 
responsible for the success or standing of the event. The submitted evidence does not distinguish the 
Petitioner's performance in the show from others in her field, or demonstrate that it ref1ects a "career 
of acclaimed work in the field." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. 
In addition, the Petitioner offered evidence that she authored a scholarly article in the 
She did not, however, establish that her publication record of a single article 
sets her apart through a "career of acclaimed work." The statute requires the Petitioner to submit 
"extensive documentation" of her sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for 
aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991 ). Further, Petitioner did not establish that her article has been cited, nor did she 
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)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
Finally, regarding her coaching expertise, the Petitioner has not established that she had coaching 
experience prior to filing the petition, and her post-filing experience appears to involve youth 
swimmers rather than accomplished athletes.2 Although the record shows that the Petitioner has 
expanded her synchronized swimming field to judging, performing, and coaching while still 
competing, she has not demonstrated her extraordinary ability, either individually as a competitor or 
collectively as a competitor, performer, or instructor. The totality of the evidence also does 
not indicate that the Petitioner has enjoyed recent sustained national or international acclaim in any 
of her areas of synchronized swimming. AFM ch. 22.2(i)(l )(C). Accordingly, as the Petitioner has 
not established her extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act as either a swimmer 
2 
The record includes a May 2016 letter from indicating its recent hiring of her to be the head coach. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides evidence regarding her involvement in assessing the "12 & Under National Team 
Trials" in 
5 
Matter of X-Z-
or a coach, we need not determine whether she is commg to "continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability" under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii). 
III. CONCLUSION 
In summary, the Petitioner's evidence is not sufficient to establish that she has garnered sustained 
national or international acclaim, or that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of her field 
of endeavor. We find that the record as a whole does not reflect extensive documentation showing 
that the Petitioner's achievements have been recognized in the field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of 
the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofX-Z-, ID# 390088 (AAO June 22, 2017)