dismissed EB-1A Case: Taekwondo

ident;@ing. data deleted to 
prevent cl zzrly i;n-narranted 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrat~ve Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasiol~ of personal privacy 
- 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER i ate: JUN 2 5 
LIN 07 046 50758 
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: 
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. tj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form 1-290B, 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. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
~$JI F. Grissorn 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary 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 in athletics. The director determined that the record did not establish that the beneficiary 
had achieved the sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The director also found the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. 
€j 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 field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top 
level. 
This petition, filed on November 30, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a taekwondo instructor and coach. Initially, the petitioner submitted his resume, awards, letters of 
recommendation, evidence of tournament judging and refereeing, certificates of dan degrees, information about 
tournaments in which the beneficiary's students have competed, and news articles. In response to the February 
26, 2008 Request for Evidence ("RFE"), the petitioner submitted additional letters of recommendation, 
information about additional tournaments, information about Kukkiwon, information about news publications, 
Page 3 
additional news articles, additional evidence of participation as a judge or referee, and information about the 
beneficiary's prospective employment. On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional letters of 
recommendation, registration for a USA Taekwondo ("USAT") tournament and the Junior Olympic Taekwondo 
Championships, and certification of his dan level. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). 
Barring the alien's receipt of a such an award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualifL as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the beneficiary meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be 
evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A 
lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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. fj 204.5(h)(2). We address the evidence submitted and counsel's contentions in 
the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim 
that the beneficiary is eligible under any criteria not addressed below. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of dans in the 2nd through 5" degree. The training 
to earn a ranking in the martial arts is not an award or a prize because the petitioner did not compete against 
others in his quest to achieve the ranking. Instead, just as with an academic diploma, all persons who 
demonstrate eligibility for the ranking or diploma receive the accolade, and experienced experts in the field 
would not compete against the petitioner for it. The memorandum submitted to members of the Martial Arts 
Commission suggests that at least ten levels of dan exist and that those at the top of the profession are awarded 
the title "grandmaster" instead of the title enjoyed by the beneficiary of "master." 
The petitioner also submitted a number of other awards awarded to the beneficiary: a citation dated August 5, 
1999 given for "contribut[ing] to the development of the local community and the activity of Sports for All;" a 
citation dated August 25, 1998 stating that the beneficiary met the "qualiflication] for the leader for sports for 
all;" a certificate of completion of the Pumsae Training Course dated March 19, 1995; gold medal in the 5th 
competition for the Trophy of Commanding General in 1992; silver medal in the 1992 Trophy of Commanding 
General; 1989 award for "doing good deeds and . . . [being a good] role model for many students;" 1989 gold 
medal in the high school Trophy of Superintendent Chonnam Sunchon Office of Education; 1989 bronze medal 
in the 2nd selection of representatives for Chonnam Province in the National Athletic Meritocrat; 1988 gold 
medal in the Trophy of President, Sunchon Branch Office; 1986 award for having a good attendance record over 
3 years and being a good role model; 1986 award for performing well in the Trophy of President of Chonnam 
Branch Office; 1985 silver medal in the middle school competition for the Trophy of the President of Chonnam 
Branch Office; 1984 gold medal in the competition for the Trophy of the President of Chonnam Branch Office; 
1983 award for having a good attendance record over 6 years; 1981 bronze medal in the competition for the 
Trophy of Chairman of Palma Sports Association; 1980 gold medal in the competition for the Trophy of 
Superintendent Chonnam Office of Education; 1980 bronze medal in a primary school competition for the 
Trophy of Superintendent of the Chonnam Office of Education; and 1980 special merit award. The petitioner 
Page 4 
submitted no evidence that any of these awards accords national or international acclaim upon the recipient and 
many of the competitions seem to be either based in a particular region or amongst schools, i.e. restricted 
competitions that would not be recognized outside of the particular area in which they were held. 
In any event those achievements made by the beneficiary were made as a practitioner and not as a coach. 
Although a nexus exists between engaging in and coaching a given sport, to assume that every extraordinary 
athlete's area of expertise includes coaching would be too speculative.' To resolve this issue, in a case 
where an alien has clearly achieved national or international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that 
acclaim in the field of coaching at a national or international level, we 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 petitioner's area of expertise. A coach who has an established 
successful history of coaching athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible claim; a 
coach of novices does not. 
The petitioner submitted two certificates awarded to the beneficiary in his coaching capacity: 2003 "Master of 
the Year" awarded by the World Martial Arts Foundation and a 2002 certificate of appreciation awarded by the 
World Martial Arts Foundation. The petitioner submitted no evidence to show that either of these certificates 
conve s national or international acclaim upon the recipient. 
 The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
Y praising the four to five months that he was coached by the beneficiary submitted 
evidence of awards won, including the 2002 Junior Olympic Championship; however, this 
coached by the beneficiary. 
 The petitioner submitted awards won by 
h and 
however, no evidence was submitted to show that either of these compet~tors is coac ed by the beneficiary. 
Even if evidence had been presented that the beneficiary acted as the competitors' coach during the time that 
they won these awards, no-evidence was presented to show that the awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
I 
crediting the beneficiary with 
coaching his son to a bronze medal at the May 11, 2008 USAT Nationa s regional qualifier. - 
wrote a letter praising the beneficiary's coaching of his son and crediting him with his son's gold and bronze 
medals in the 2008 National Tae Kwon Do Qualifier. Not only was no evidence presented regarding these 
tournaments to show that they conveyed national or international acclaim upon the bekeficiar-y, but these-letters 
describe tournaments that occurred in 2008, which was after the date that this petition was filed. A petitioner 
must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing the etition. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 197 1). A letter fro -credits the beneficiary 
with his son's success in tournaments in 2006 and 2008. Any success in 2008 would have occurred after the 
date that this petition was filed; 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; and the 
2006 tournaments were indicated as "local" so they do not indicate national or international acclaim. The 
letter from states that her sons have earned medals under the beneficiary's tutelage, but 
I 
 While not binding precedent, we note that the reasoning contained in Lee v. INS., 237 F.Supp.2d 914, 918 
(N.D.111. 2002), supports this interpretation: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as working in 
the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any profession in that 
field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not imply that he also has 
extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, 
umpire or instructor. 
those medals seem to have been awarded at local tournaments. No evidence was submitted and no statements 
made by the parents to show at what level these students competed. Due to the age of the letter writers' 
children, it seems as if the students are novices as they are not adults or even teenagers. 
Therefore, even if the petitioner had provided evidence that the competitions the beneficiary won are 
nationally or internationally recognized, it did not provide any evidence that he earned sustained national or 
international acclaim through his work coaching or training, such as through nationally or internationally 
recognized awards won by his students. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the field for which classijication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a 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, proficiency certifications, standardized test scores, grade point average, 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 petitioner claims that the beneficiary is eligible under this criterion by virtue of his membership in the 
World Taekwondo Federation (also referred to as Kukkiwon, the Korean city in which it is based). The 
information submitted about this organization indicates that it is an organization of practitioners and coaches 
without regard to ability or achievement. No evidence in the record indicates that membership is predicated 
on outstanding achievement. The petitioner also claims eligibility through the beneficiary's receipt of the 5th 
level dan. Although the beneficiary did receive that dan, the petitioner has not shown that an association of 
5th level dan holders exists. 
For all of the above reasons, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
(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 classijication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would 
not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. 
For example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
The petitioner submitted an article entitled "Chung's Tae Kwon Do, A Unique Martial Art Academy in Miami 
Lakes Since 1989" and "Recognized Worldwide Grand Master Chung7s Tae Kwon Do in Miami Lakes" which 
appeared in the September 2006 Pines & Miramar Advisor, an article from the April 9,2003 Korean-American 
Journal, "Florida Olympic 'Sunshine State Game"' which appeared in the June 21, 2006 Korean-American 
~ournai "~aekwondo championship Series in Florida - ~Lat Success" published in the April 9-15, 2003 
Korean-American Journal, and ' selected as the 24~ President of Korean-American 
Federation - Regular meeting of Southern Florida Korean-American Federation" which appeared in the 
September 20, 2006 Korean-American Journal. None of these articles were primarily about the beneficiary as 
required by the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) as opposed to merely 
listing the beneficiary's name as a participant or in some other secondary manner. In addition, the April 9,2003 
article in the Korean-American Journal does not contain the requisite translation as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3), because instead of including a translation of the material, the petitioner submitted a summary 
of what was in the publication. A summary of what is presented in the foreign language is not the same as a 
translation of that item. Without the full translation, we are unable to determine that this article is relevant to 
this criterion. The petitioner also submitted articles from the Korean-American Journal and The Korean 
News about certain tournaments or about the practice of Taekwondo in general. These articles are not 
primarily about the beneficiary and the petitioner provides no reasoning for why these articles would be 
applicable under this criterion. 
Finally, as it relates to the regulatory requirement that the material be published in major media, the information 
submitted about the publications amounts to a statement from an unidentified source stating that "The Korean- 
American Journal and The Korean news are newspapers that are distributed among the Korean Americans in 
Florida." First, this statement gives no information indicating that either publication is a professional or major 
trade publication or other major media such as by providing circulation statistics or comparisons to other 
comparable publications. Second, the statement indicates that the publications are regional in nature since they 
are distributed only in Florida, so they could not amount to professional or major trade publications or other 
major media and could not illustrate national acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien 3 participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an allied3eld of speclJication for which classijication is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[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." Evidence of the beneficiary's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "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. 5 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county 
national competition or a competition for top athletes is of far greater probative value than judging a regional, 
youth or amateur competition. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's participation as a referee and judge in the 2002 and 
2003 Florida State Tae Kwon Do Championships, a referee at the 6th and 7th Annual Taekwondo Invitational 
tournaments in 2002 and 2003, a referee at the 2002 and 2003 President's Cup World Martial Arts 
Championships, and a referee and judge at the 2006 Florida "Olympic Sunshine States Games. The 
petitioner submitted no information about these tournaments such as information about individuals who were 
judged by the beneficiary or about how he was selected to be a judge for these competitions. The 
information submitted about the President's Cup indicates that both children and competitors over the age of 
16 competed, but the information does not indicate whom the beneficiary judged. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted no information about the reputation, significance, or magnitude of these tournaments for us to be 
able to ascertain whether the beneficiary's participation as a judge is indicative of the national or 
international acclaim at the very top level of the martial arts field that is required for this highly restrictive 
classification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijicance in the field. 
Letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner alone are not sufficient to meet this criterion. The 
opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See 
id. at 795. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance 
that one would expect of a martial arts performer who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
The letter from 
 president of the Florida State Tae Kwon Do Union, states that the beneficiary "is 
extraordinary. He has evidently practiced and trained his whole life." 
 continues: "The United States 
needs qualified instructors to train our students to compete . . . we need instructors with the desire to win and 
compete against the Korean teams" and 
 believes that the beneficiary fits in this category. The letter 
from states that the beneficiary "is the best" and "most qualified coach in the state of Florida and 
that the beneficiary "has been able to change the most undisciplined, disrespectful children into scholar students 
and wonderful, well-rounded people." In addition, as referenced above, the petitioner submitted letters from 
parents of the beneficiary's &dents praising the beneficiary's abilities as a coach and mentor. Although 
complimentary of the beneficiary's abilities, these letters do not indicate that the beneficiary has made an 
original contribution of major significance to the field as a whole as opposed to making a contribution of major 
significance to the lives of his students. 
Page 8 
Counsel stated that although taekwondo has a long history in Korea, it is a fairly new endeavor for residents 
of the United States so that "[tlhe most significant contributions to the sport today involve its slowly 
developing reputation throughout the world." The petitioner submitted no evidence that the beneficiary has 
helped to develop the practice's re utation in the United States outside of the small group of students that he 
coaches especially when letter states that the state of Florida alone has hundreds of taekwondo 
instructors. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is eligible under this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien S work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the beneficiary meets this criterion because "taekwondo has a long history as a 
demonstration sport" and that "demonstration is a valuable and important role for the sport and should be 
considered when evaluating whether [the beneficiary] qualifies as exceptional in the field." The plain language 
of this criterion reveals that it relates to the visual arts, such as sculptors and painters, rather than to martial arts 
competition. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will 
apply to every occupation. The petitioner's participation and success in martial arts competitions has previously 
been addressed under the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Virtually every athlete "displays" his 
work in the sense of competing in front of an audience. Even if we accept counsel's assertion that taekwondo is 
an art form that is displayed similarly to an artistic exhibition in certain instances, the petitioner submitted no 
evidence showing that the beneficiary's coaching abilities were showcased in any exhibition that could be 
considered illustrative of his national or international acclaim as a coach. 
As such, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner relied upon the approval of the beneficiary's 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition as 
persuasive in this matter. An approval of an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition does not mandate the approval 
of a similar immigrant visa petition. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2 (0)(3)(iv), relating to nonimmigrant 
aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts, provides different eligibility criteria than those for the immigrant 
classification discussed below. Section 101(a)(46) of the Act provides: "The term 'extraordinary ability' 
means, for purposes of subsection (a)(15)(0)(i) of this section, in the case of the arts, distinction." 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines "distinction" as follows: 
Distinction means a high level of achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of 
skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that a 
person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation relating to the immigrant classification, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2), however, defines 
extraordinary ability in any field as "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." While the ten criteria set forth at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) appear in the nonimmigrant regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii), those criteria apply 
only to aliens who seek extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or athletics. 
Separate criteria for nonimmigrant aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts are set forth in the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iv). The distinction between these fields and the arts, which appears in the 
nonimmigrant regulations at 8 C.F.R. tj 2 14.2(0), does not appear in the immigrant regulations governing this 
petition at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h). As such, the beneficiary's approval for a non-immigrant visa classification 
under the lesser standard of "distinction" is not evidence of his eligibility for the similarly titled immigrant 
classification. Each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits under the statutory provisions and 
regulations which apply to the classification sought. 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary 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 beneficiary's achievements set him significantly 
above almost all others in his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established the beneficiary's 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. tj 1361. 
 Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
 Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.