dismissed EB-1A Case: Taekwondo

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
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. 5 1 153(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 fbrther 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. 
cj 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. 
$ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
-@4/ ?lL. 
o F. rissom 
t Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
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 in athletics. 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 has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. (5 204.5(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). The relevant criteria 
will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 18, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a taekwondo coach. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. (5 204.50(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 such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for 
Page 3 
an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
We note that much of the petitioner's evidence documents his achievements as a competitor in 
taekwondo. The petitioner, however, indicates that he intends to work as a coach in the United 
States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h) requires the petitioner to "continue work in the area 
of expertise." While a martial arts competitor and a coach certainly share knowledge of the sport, 
the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are 
not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in federal court. In Lee v. 
INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
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 
coach. 
Id. at 91 8. The court noted a consistent history in this area. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that 
there is a nexus between playing or competing in and coaching a given sport. To assume that 
every extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, however, 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 level, we will 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. Specifically, in such a case we will consider the level at which the 
alien acts as coach. 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. Thus, 
we will examine whether the petitioner has demonstrated his extraordinary ability as a coach or 
as an athlete. If the petitioner has demonstrated extraordinary ability as an athlete, we will 
consider the level at which he has successfully coached. 
The petitioner did not initially allege that his evidence was applicable to any specific criterion. 
Rather, he submitted the documentation that he first presented with his petition as a 
nonirnmigrant alien under section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(l5)(0)(i). We 
note that while U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has previously approved an 0-1 
nonirnmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, that prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS fi-om denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased standard. 
It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonirnrnigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. 
Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing I- 
129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are 
simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also 
Texas A& Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that 
prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a 
reassessment of the beneficiary's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g,, Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Cornm. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a 
nonimrnigrant petition on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center, Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
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 copies of the following: 
1. A 1992 diploma from the Bulgarian Taekwon-do Federation, indicating that the 
petitioner placed 2nd in the Open Tournament of Taekwon-do in the "under 50 kg" 
category. 
2. A March 19, 1995 diploma from the Macedonian Open Tournament of Taekwon-do 
Macedonian Taekwon-do Association, indicating that he placed first in his weight 
category at the World Championship - Skopie '95."' 
3. A June 16, 1996 diploma from the Second Bulgarian Army Department "Battle 
Training," indicating that he won second place in the Army's Championship of 
Taekwon-do. 
4. A 1996 diploma from the Bulgarian Taekwondo Federation, indicating that he placed 
first in "sparring men/64 kg" at the Republican Championship of Taekwondo. 
5. An October 18, 1997 diploma from the Bulgarian Taekwon-do Federation, indicating 
that he placed first in his weight category at the "4' Traditional Tournament of 
Taekwon-do WTF for the cup 'Orhanie. "' 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 5 
6. An April 25, 1998 diploma from the Bulgarian Taekwon-do Federation, indicating 
that the petitioner placed first in his weight category at the "6th Traditional 
Tournament of Taekwon-do WTF for the Cup of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - P. 
Genchev. "' 
7. An October 24, 1998 diploma from the Bulgarian Taekwon-do Federation, indicating 
that the petitioner placed first in the 62 kglsparring category at the Open Tournament 
for the Cup 'Orhanie 11.'" 
8. An April 24, 1999 diploma from the Bulgarian Taekwon-do Federation, indicating 
that the petitioner placed first in his weight category in the "Memorable Tournament 
'Petko Genchev. "' 
9. A June 26, 1999 diploma from the Bulgarian Taekwon-do Federation, indicating that 
the petitioner placed first in his weight category at the Republican Championship for 
Men and Women. 
The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that any of the listed awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized as awards of excellence in the field of taekwondo. 
Further, we note that the last competition won by the petitioner was in 1999. The petitioner must 
establish that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner 
submitted no documentation of any prizes or awards or other recognized acclaim as a competitor 
in the seven years preceding the filing of the petition. Thus, he has not established the sustained 
acclaim as a taekwondo competitor necessary for this visa classification. 
As it relates to individuals that he coached, the petitioner also submitted a copy of an award 
certificate for 
 and copies of certificates of participation presented to = 
and 
 However, the petitioner did not indicate the significance of these 
documents. 
In a request for evidence (RFE) dated March 15,2007, the director acknowledged the certificates 
for and but advised the petitioner that there was not evidence that he 
served as coach of these individuals. The director instructed the petitioner to 
[Plrovide official documentary evidence which establishes your services as a 
coach to these individuals including a list of all other trainers and coaches 
involved with the particular athletes. Further, you must demonstrate your 
contributions and nay resulting acclaim in relation to any other trainers/coaches 
involved.. Also, you must provide copies of the actual awards won by the 
individuals along with documentary evidence that establishes the significance of 
the awards. 
Page 6 
In response, the etitioner submitted a co 
 of a DVD that he stated is "video evidence" of his 
coaching of h and The DVD is purportedly o- 
competition at the 14" Annual U.S. Open Taekwondo Championships in 2005. The DVD, 
however, does not identify the petitioner or or document her finish in the 
competition. The petitioner also provided documentation regarding competitions in which = 
participated in 2007. However, as these competitions occurred subsequent to the July 18, 
2006 filing date of the petition, they are not evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of the date 
the petition was filed. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot 
be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set 
of facts. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
In denying the petition, the director determined that the petitioner had not established that he was 
the primary coach for the athletes, and that he had failed to establish his actual role in training 
the individuals. On appeal, counsel asserts that " t here has been no denial by the Service that the 
petitioner is the coach of and The petitioner provides m 
professional biography and evidence that and have advanced during 
the World Junior Championships Open. Counsel alleges that this is evidence to support the 
petitioner's claim that he meets this criterion. 
Regardless of their success, the petitioner has failed to establish his role as coach with the 
individuals named. The petitioner submitted no documentation to corroborate that - 
and are his students. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion, either as a competitor or as a 
coach. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzjication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, 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 work experience, 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. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a copy of a letter fiom the website of USA 
Taekwondo, accessed on March 21, 2007. The letter is addressed to - and 
indicates that he had success~lly renewed the petitioner's membership as a coach in the 
association. The petitioner also submitted copies of his membership cards for 2005 and 2006 as 
an athlete and coach. The petitioner submitted no documentation that membership in USA 
Taekwondo required outstanding achievements as judged by national or international experts of 
its members. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner holds the 4' Dan degree, which allows the person to 
be a referee and a peer reviewer. However, reaching a particular level of expertise does not 
necessarily equate to outstanding achievement. The petitioner again failed to submit 
documentation to establish that USA Taekwondo requires outstanding achievement as a 
condition of membership to the association. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion either as a competitor or a coach. 
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 alliedfield of speciJication for which classification is 
sought. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted a co 
 of a March 22, 2006 letter from the Pan 
American Taekwondo Union, signed by 
 who identified himself as the president of 
the union. 
 stated that the petitioner "is a certified referee and frequently judged the 
performance of other Taekwondo participants." The petitioner also submitted a copy of a 
September 14, 2002 "certificate of participation," certifying that he participated in a "Referee 
Seminar" conducted by the United States Taekwondo Union, and a copy of a September 14, 
2002 "referee certification," certifying that he had "achieved Referee class International 
Referee." The petitioner also submitted a copy of a March 9, 2006 "certificate of referee results" 
from the Bally Total Fitness Corporation, signed by - as Executive Director of the 
company's Taekwondo Masters Academy. According to the certificate, the petitioner served as 
referee for the company at four tournaments from May 2004 to October 2005. These 
tournaments were held at William Rainey Harper College and York High School. The document 
indicates that each tournament involved 500 participants but did not otherwise indicate the scope 
of the tournament. 
In his June 5, 2007 letter accompanying the petitioner's response to the RFE, counsel asserted 
that the director's statement that he was not persuaded that "serving as a referee constitutes 
judging the work of others within the meaning of this criterion" is "troubling and baseless." 
Counsel stated that according to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "a referee is a 
sports official usually having final authority in administering a game." 
According to the petitioner's documentation bbFoundations of Refereeing:" 
The referee is an official of the competition who manages the match according to 
the rules and who starts and ends the match. Hislher duties are to make decisions 
and apply the rules during the match. 
In this case, it does not appear that a referee in Taekwondo judges a competitors skills or 
technique but rather enforces the rules of competition and "fair play." In addition, while the 
petitioner submitted the certificates regarding attending a referee seminar and achieved "referee 
class," the sole evidence that he actually refereed any event related to competitions for Bally's. 
Such competitions appear to be for local, amateur competitions and therefore, are not indicative 
of the national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification. The 
AAO interprets this regulation to require that the selection and participation process for serving 
as the judge of the work of others in the field be indicative of national or international acclaim in 
the field. The evidence does not establish that the petitioner's role as a referee was because of his 
national acclaim. 
The petitioner provides no additional evidence of this criterion on appeal. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion either as a competitor or a coach. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
In his letter accompanying the petitioner's response to the RFE, counsel asserted: 
Viewing the petition as a whole, specifically with the numerous championships 
and now coaching prowess of the petitioner clearly sets forth that he has achieved 
that small percentage, based on his personal achievements in his sport, as well as 
that of his students. Furthermore, the very nature of the attained belt rank, which 
has not been dismissed by the Service, clearly shows that the petitioner has met 
this criteria [sic]. 
The director noted the letters of reference submitted on behalf of the petitioner attesting to his 
talents and abilities as a competitor and coach, and his "extraordinary ability" in the martial arts. 
However, neither of the witnesses attests that the petitioner has made a contribution of major 
significance to Taekwondo or the martial arts. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that "the petitioner's level of Dan is indicative of his expertise in the 
field." Nonetheless, attaining a certain level of expertise does not, by itself, establish that the 
petitioner has made a contribution of any significance to the field. Further, we note that, 
according to the petitioner's documentation, the Dan belts are a hction of both age and 
expertise. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion either as a 
competitor or as a coach. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a DVD which he stated is evidence of this criterion. 
As noted by the director, the wording of this criterion indicates it is intended for those in the 
visual arts such as sculptors and painters. Counsel asserts that "[tlhe Service is placing too rigid 
of a burden in this matter and needs to look at the sport in closer detail and without a 
preconceived generality as to all sports and coaching in sports." However, the petitioner's 
evidence does not establish that, other than in competition, his work has been displayed in a 
specific forum designed for that purpose. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion either as a coach or a competitor. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that he performed a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment and that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. 
Counsel alleges in his June 5, 2007 that "[dlue to the very nature of Taekwondo, the coaching of 
athletes sets forth the criterion." The petitioner submitted copies of photographs that counsel 
alleged were of the petitioner's students and his referee status. The petitioner also submitted a 
March 9, 2006 "certificate of coach results" from the Taekwondo Masters Academy, certifying 
that he "served as a coach for the Taekwondo Masters Academy Elite Team for Bally Total 
Fitness Corporation." 
The petitioner submitted no documentation that his role as a coach for the Taekwondo Masters 
Academy Elite Team was in a leading or critical role or that the Taekwondo Masters Academy 
Elite Team is an organization with a distinguished reputation. Further, the petitioner submitted 
no documentation to establish that he served in a lead or critical role for any individual who has a 
distinguished reputation. Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish his eligibility for this 
criterion either as a competitor or a coach. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzjkantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
Counsel alleges that "Due to the very nature of Taekwondo, high remuneration levels do not 
exist," and that: 
This should not be a basis, however, for denial or a lack of meeting this prong . . . 
for the qualifications of the petitioner in relation to his petition and the sport of 
Taekwondo must be looked at not as a whole as to other coaching disciplines but 
uniquely and individually as to the sport. In so doing, the degree of remuneration 
should only be a basis for approvability and not a basis for denial. 
Page 10 
Counsel's argument is without merit. First, the regulations do not require that each and every 
criterion must be analyzed in connection with a petitioner's specific field of endeavor. They are 
merely guidelines in aiding the petitioner in establishing his extraordinary ability under this visa 
classification. Second, the criterion clearly states that in order to meet this criterion, the 
petitioner must only establish his or her remuneration is high relative to others in the field. The 
petitioner is not required to establish that his remuneration is high in relation to others in 
competitive sports, only in connection with coaches in Taekwondo. 
On his Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner indicated that his 
expected income was $450 per week. The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that 
this remuneration is high in relation to other coaches of Taekwondo. 
The petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion.. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as 
a Taekwondo competitor or coach 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. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 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. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.