dismissed EB-1A Case: Taekwondo

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC.22.2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a taekwondo athlete. 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 1-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not received a major one-time award. and alternatively. 
had only satisfied one of the initial evidentiary criteria. of which he must meet at least three. 
Additionally. he determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that he was coming to continue 
to work in his claimed area of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he meets five criteria. He argues that the Director's decision 
was erroneous, did not address all of the claimed criteria. and was not supported by the record. 
1 
With his appeaL the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)( 1 )(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 
The Director denied the petition after issuing an RFE that only requested evidence relating to some of the adverse 
eligibility issues raised in the denial. The Petitioner asserts that the denial of the petition in this manner was in error. 
We note that 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(ii) states in pertinent part that USCIS ··in its discretion may deny the benefit request 
for lack of initial evidence or for ineligibility or request that the missing initial evidence be submitted within a specified 
period oftime as determined by USCIS.'' 
.
Malter of 1-A-
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 111 the field through 
extensive documentation. 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The te1m "extraordinary ability"' refers only to those individuals in ''that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the tield of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternately, he or she must provide evidence that 
meets at least three 
of the criteria 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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is tirst counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a tina! merits determination): see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013): Rijal v. USCIS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. 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 o{Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 I 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of tiling. the Petitioner was competing in taekwondo tournaments under the auspices of 
the The Director determined in his denial that the 
Petitioner's receipt ofthe gold medal at the 2016 111 
Belarus, and his bronze medal at the 2015 in Bulgaria as part of the 
did not constitute the receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The Director noted that the selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by 
Congress 2, is repm1cd in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, 
2 
See H.R. Rep. No. I 01-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 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 
lesser internationally recognized awards could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien 
2 
.
Matter of!-A-
is a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash prize. He also observed that while 
a major 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 internationally 
recognized in the alien's field as one ofthe top awards in that field. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director determined that ''only an Olympic medal would 
qualify under this criteria [as a major award] when athletes are not eligible for the Olympics"' in 
his denial. We disagree that the Director limited the pool of acceptable major awards to those 
garnered at Olympic events to meet this criterion. He simply concluded, by way of example that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that his medals had garnered the level of international recognition 
accorded to Olympic medal recipients. 
The Petitioner has provided constitution, bylaws, and other evidence which shows that the two 
events in which the Petitioner's received medals are international in scope. as competitors from 
many nations participated in the proceedings. However, the submitted material 
discussing the Petitioner's receipt of the medals, to include a transcript of a television interview with 
him on and articles in and do not establish that his receipt of 
these medals was covered by the international press in a manner commensurate with his receipt of a 
major award. !d. News coverage of a prize or award that appears to be local or national in nature, 
and does not ret1ect recognition by the general public cannot, by itself~ establish that the prize or 
award is a major internationally recognized award. Rijal v. U.S'. Citizenship & lnuniKrafion 
Services, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011) aff'd, 683 F.3d I 030 (9th Cir. June 13, 2012) 
(finding that conclusion not to be arbitrary or capricious). 
Considering the entire record, we affirm the Director's determination that the Petitioner failed to 
provide evidence to establish that his medals qualify as a one-time achievement that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award. Because he has not established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, he must 
satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the initial evidentiary requirements. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In his denial, the Director found that while the Petitioner met the lesser awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(i), he did not meet the membership, published material, and judging criteria described 
in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). He did not address the Petitioner's assertion that he met the artistic 
display criteria specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he meets the following criteria: awards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), published material at 8 C.F.R. 
must meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
.
Matter off-A-
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and display at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 3 
He maintains that he has demonstrated his sustained national or international acclaim and that he is 
among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Upon review of all of the 
evidence, we conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation olthe alien ·s receipt o.llesser nationally or internationally recoRni:zed prizes 
or awardsfor excellence in the .field olendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted documentation showing that he won international championship medals at 
events in Belarus and Bulgaria in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Accordingly, he has 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation ol the alien's membership in associations in the .field fhr 1vhich 
classtfication is sought. ·which require outstanding achieven1ents of' their members. as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orfield\'. 
8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based upon his selection as a member of the 
and the He also emphasizes the expe1iise of the 
individuals who selected him for his team memberships, and in the case of the the 
competitive titles that have been won by other members on the team. The record shows that the 
Petitioner won various competitions as a youth pmiicipant on the team. The letter from 
president of the describes 
his own expertise as a leader of the taekwondo sp011 in Tajikistan. He comments on the Petitioner 's 
taekwondo skills, noting that he is one of the strongest contenders that he has ever worked with. The 
record, however, does not include supporting evidence showing that membership on this team 
required outstanding achievements. 
Likewise, the Petitioner notes that president of the 
and the head coach of the observed him 
pmiicipate in variou s competitive events while he was a student in the United States. Subsequently, the 
Petitioner was invited to participate as a member of the . and won awards as 
a team member at competitions. He provides a letter ti·om in which he asks permission 
of (his Tajikistan mentor) to allow the Petitioner to pmiicipate on the 
3 The Petitioner has also requested the consideration of his recommendation letters, 
refereeing and coaching experience. and the display of his martial arts skills at international competitions as comparable 
evidence to establish his eligibility. However, he has not demonstrated why a specific criterion is not readily applicable 
to his occupation, and how the submitted evidence is comparable to that criterion. While we will not consider this 
material separately as comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(4), we will review the entire record to determine 
the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit soughr. 
4 
.
Matter of !-A-
also provided a letter of support, and writes that he expects the Petitioner to be a 
member of the team for many years, due to his talent and skills. However. the Petitioner has not 
provided supporting evidence showing that membership on this team required outstanding 
achievements. 
The Petitioner must show that he meets every element of a given criterion, including that he is a 
member of a team that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. We will not presume that every national "team'' is sufficiently 
exclusive. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the procedures utilized for his 
selection on the teams upon which he is basing his claim under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(ii). Therefore. he 
has not met this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in proj'essional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's ~work in the.fieldf(Jr which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title. date. and author oj'the material. and any necesswy 
translation. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted an article, entitled ' which appeared on 
the website. in which the author interviewed him after he won a medal at the 2016 
In 2013, he was interviewed by in an article entitled ' 
He was also interviewed in 2013 by which is a Tajikistan sports periodical. 
The articles all discuss his success and progress m developing his taekwondo skills. He also 
documented a television interview by a Tajikistan station, in 2012 at 
the age of 16, in which he recounted his accomplishments as a youth participant at taekwondo 
events. 
On appeal, the provides webpages from a subsidiary of com. that audits and makes 
public the frequency of visits on various websites. According to the statistics provided. 
and ranked and respectively, in frequency of traffic as an online media 
outlet in Tajikistan. The full list of websites included in the rankings presented and the number of 
visits to each website was not provided. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to show 
that these web-based outlets are ''Tajikistan's leading information portal[s]" and qualify as major 
media as claimed. 4 
Moreover, while documentation has been provided to show that is a 
station in Tajikistan. insufficient evidence has been submitted regarding its reputation as a media 
outlet, its target audience, and the size of its viewership to show that it qualities as major media 
4 USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material ofthe publisher. S'ee Braga r. Poulos. No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. 
D. C A July 6. 2007) afrd 2009 WL 604888 (9'" Cir. 2009) (concluding that self-serving assertions on the cover of a 
magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliable evidence of major media). 
.
Matter of 1-A-
under this criterion. Additionally, though the Petitioner maintains that is one of .. the 
most popular publications in Tajikistan", its webpage simply states that it is published twice 
weekly and is nationally distributed. While websites are technically accessible nationally and even 
internationally, we will not assume that every website has significant national or international 
viewership. The act of posting an article online does not necessarily constitute publication in major 
media. The materials relating to do not indicate that this website routinely attract s 
national or international attention, or otherwise qualities as major media. Accordingly , he ha s not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of'th e alien ·s participation, either individually or on a panel. as ajudKe ol 
the work ol others in the same or an allied field ol .\pec(fication fiJr which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record ref1ects that the Petitioner was awarded certificates for "refereeing·· at four youth 
competitions in 2011 and 2012, in Russia , Kazakhstan , and Tajikistan , when he was 15 or 16 years 
old. He indicates that he was selected to perform these tasks because of his ·experience and intricate 
knowledge of the rules:· He further notes , "the competitions were locaL national, and internationaL 
with competitors from different countries there. Not only did I enforce the rules, I also was involved 
in selecting the winners. " The Petitioner did not submit sufficient documentary evidence 
establishing his duties as a "judge'' at these competitions. We also note that his refereeing activities 
were limited to youth matches, not as a judge of adult participants who are "others working in the 
field" for the purposes of this criterion. 
Further , the bylaws provide on page 3 that an umpire training course must be developed and 
utilized to ensure that umpires are qualified to the "'umpire level with the main focus on the umpires 
who should referee in ... international tournaments .'· The bylaws also specif y on page 17 that: 
I 
The Petitioner ' s statement s regarding his performance as a referee and judge of others in the field at 
national and international tournaments arc incongruous with the requirement s for umpires specified 
in the by-laws. The record contains insufficient evidence that he received the training the 
requires for such duties , or that he had met the requisite 
While the Petitioner may have acted 
informally as a referee as a youth, he has not demonstrated that he has satisfied his own 
organization's requirements to act as a judge in its tournaments. For these reasons. the Petitioner has 
not met this criterion. 
Matter (~f I-A-
Evidence (?l the di<\play of' the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
shoH'cases. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Various forms of a1iistic display may satisfy this criterion· s requirements. As a result, we evaluate the 
nature of the display. According to the plain language of this criterion. the exhibition or showcase must 
be artistic in nature. The arts may include visual art. the perfonning arts. music. graphic art, and other 
examples of the tine arts. And, just as the event must be atiistic. the evidence must also demonstrate the 
artistic nature of a petitioner's work displayed at the event. It is not necessary for a petitioner to show 
that their work was specifically highlighted in any promotional materials or credits: only that his or her 
work was on display. and that both the work and the event were a1iistic in nature. 
The Petitioner maintains that since he has participated in a variety of taekwondo compet1t1ons 
intemationally his '·work has been and is continuously displayed in more than one country." However. 
he has not established that his work was displayed at ''artistic exhibitions or showcases." The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the plain language of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian. 596 F.3d at 119-20. Nevertheless. we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate. concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. In addition. as the 
Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the Act. we 
need not determine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" 
under section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of1-A-. ID# 698645 (AAO Dec. 22, 20 17)