dismissed EB-1A Case: Taekwondo

identifyini? rl'l!<l ieleted t 
prevent Cj" •. 0 
inv' , . , • ',' :.trranted aSlOn of per"onaJ . ~ pnvacy 
1)l rnLIC COpy 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
HAY 0 L 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 )(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the ollice that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a [ee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on July Z6, Z010, and 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 
Z03(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § l1S3(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in taekwondo. The director detennined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section Z03(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. § Z04.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § Z04.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ Z04.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ Z04.S(h)(3). 
I. LAW 
Section Z03(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 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) 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 H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Ped. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. ld.; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petItIoner demonstrate the alien·s 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 P.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while users may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "tinal merits determination." ld. at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." /d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. ld. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In the director's decision, she determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for every 
element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate his receipt of prizes and awards, 
he must also demonstrate that those prizes and awards are nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. In other words, the petitioner must establish that his prizes 
and awards are recognized nationally or internationally for excellence in the field beyond the 
awarding entities. Based on a review of the record of proceeding, the AAO must withdraw the 
findings of the director for this criterion. 
As evidence of the petitioner's purported awards, the petitioner submitted numerous photographs of 
medals and trophies with self-asserting captions, as well as photographs of himself posing with 
medals, trophies, and other participants. While the medals and trophies identify the events, they fail 
to reflect that they were awarded to the petitioner. For example, the petitioner submitted a 
photograph of four medals that only indicated that they were from the PanAm-Euro Cup. Although 
the petitioner indicated in his self-serving caption that he received "Gold in Sparring and Poomsae," 
there is no evidence that he actually garnered the medals. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972». As the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt [emphasis 
added]," simply submitting photographs of medals or trophies that do not indicate the recipient is 
insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner actually garnered the medals or trophies. 
Moreover, the petitioner submitted several certificates that acknowledged and thanked the petitioner 
for his participation, contribution, and dedication to service. For instance, the petitioner submitted a 
"Certificate of Recognition" from Discovery Taekwondo that recognized the petitioner for his 
"commitment and contribution in the propagation of Taekwondo." However, as the plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires the petitioner to submit documentation of his 
"nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence [emphasis added]," the 
AAO is not persuaded that documentation that merely acknowledges or recognizes the petitioner's 
participation, as well as certificates that thank the petitioner for giving demonstrations, equates to a 
prize or award consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 5 
Furthennore, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary reflecting that they are nationally or 
internationall y recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. In other words, the petitioner 
failed to demonstrate that the certificates are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence 
beyond the awarding entities. 
Likewise, the petitioner submitted certificates from tournaments that acknowledged the petitioner's 
participation but do not reflect that the petitioner won any prizes or awards. For example, the 
petitioner submitted a "Participation Certificate" from the 2009 U.S. Open Taekwondo 
Championships in Las Vegas, Nevada from February 11 - 15, 2009. However, the petitioner failed 
to submit any documentary evidence reflecting that the petitioner won any prizes or awards from 
this taekwondo championship. It is insufficient to demonstrate eligibility for this criterion by 
simpl y submitting evidence that he participated in a national tournament without evidence that he 
actually garnered any prizes or awards. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted several certificates reflecting the petitioner's completion of 
various training courses. For instance, the petitioner submitted a "Letter of Commendation" from 
World Taekwondo Headquarters indicating that the petitioner "completed the 19
th 
Foreign Instructor Course for 3'd class." Although the document may demonstrate the petitioner's 
qualification as a foreign instructor, it falls far short in establishing that it is a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. Academic certificates and 
degrees while preparing for a vocation fall substantially short of constituting a national or 
international prize or award for recognition in the field. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
1. Three certificates from the 3'd Hadong - Korea International Women's 
Taekwondo Open Championship from November 11 - 15, 2004, reflecting 
third place in the senior group taekwondo gym., third place in the senior 
create poomsae, and second place in the senior compulsory poomsae; 
2. A certificate from the California State Championship on March 20, 2010, 
reflecting second place in the first senior poomsae; and 
3. Two certificates from the __ Invitational on September 27, 2008, 
reflecting first place in the poomsae and first place in sparring. 
While the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing his finishes, the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that his placements are 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. Merely 
submitting evidence of the petitioner's receipt of prizes or awards is insufficient to meet the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) without documentary evidence reflecting that 
the prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence by the field beyond the awarding entitites. 
Page 6 
As discussed, the plain language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires that the petitioner's 
prizes or awards be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field, In this case, 
the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his prizes or awards are tantamount to nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. A~ such, the 
AAO withdraws the decision of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the .field lilr which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, 
the petitioner states: 
I have been a member of the Philippine National Taekwondo Team [PNTT] and the 
Philippine National Taekwondo Demonstration Team [PNTDT] and have sent 
evidence of my membership in the form of an official letter coming from the 
~~~ Taekwondo Association [PTA] signed by the Deputy Secretary General 
and together with it are official letters of of 
signed 
I am currently a member of the elite California Demonstration Team [Team-M] 
which I have submitted evidence of my membership, Official Letter from California 
Unified Taekwondo Association (CUT A) President Gnmdlma~;ter 
and submitted evidence for membership requirement 
Califomia Demonstration Team Master is also National Team 
Poomsae (Forms) Coach. 
I have been a member of the Philippine Taekwondo Blackbelt Brotherhood [PTBB] 
and Batch Leader of the 24th batch moreover I have been the Team captain Of the 
in which I studied having an 
art of Taekwondo. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii) requires "[d]ocumentation of the 
alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields [emphasis added]." In order to demonstrate that membership in 
associations meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that associations require 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, standardized 
Page 7 
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. 
Regarding PNTI and PNTDT, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
who stated that the petitioner was a member of PNTI and PNTDT. However, the 
petitioner failed to submit any primary evidence from PNTI and PNTDT to demonstrate that the 
petitioner was a member of the teams. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i) provides that the 
non-existence or unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence 
does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where 
secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Instead 
of submitting primary evidence from PNTI and PNTDT regarding his membership, the petitioner 
submitted a letter from a representative of PTA. Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit any 
evidence establishing that primary and secondary evidence do not exist. In addition, 
is not an affidavit as it was not sworn to or affirmed by the declarant before an 
officer authorized to administer oaths or affirmations who has, having confirmed the declarant's 
identity, administered the requisite oath or affirmation. See Black's Law Dictionary 58 (9th Ed., 
West 2009). Nor, in lieu of having been signed before an officer authorized to administer oaths or 
affirmations, does it contain the requisite statement, permitted by Federal law, that the signers, in 
signing the statements, certify the truth of the statements, under penalty of perjury. 28 U.S.c. 
§ 1746. The AAO notes that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i) requires more than one 
affidavit. 
Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner also submitted a letter 
Team Coach, who stated: 
Philippine 
Every year, approximately 1,500 blackbelt competitors all over the Philippine 
compete within their respective regions to qualify to the Philippine National 
Taekwondo Championships. Only Players who place Gold, Silver and Bronze get to 
advance to the final evaluations round. The final evaluations round is a tournament 
that is organized by the Philippine National Coaches, former World Taekwondo 
Champions and the chief instructor of the [PTA 1 
further sift through the best athletes from the Nationals Championship. The 
selection process does not rest solely on the winning results of the tournament. 
Every player is assessed by his skills, attitude, character and training potential. 
The letter provided by is insufficient to demonstrate that membership with PNTI 
requires outstanding Judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. makes no mention of the petitioner's membership with PNTI 
and does not indicate how the petitioner qualified for membership with PNTI, such as the 
petitioner's placement at the National Taekwondo Championship. Again, as discussed under the 
awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the petitioner failed to 
Page 8 
submit any documentary evidence that reflected any nationall y or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards. Moreover, the AAO is not persuaded that assessing "skills, attitude, character and 
training potential" is reflective of outstanding achievements consistent with the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The AAO has previously determined that an alien's participation as a member of a national team in 
the Olympics may demonstrate eligibility for this criterion as such teams are limited in the number 
of members and have a rigorous selection process. It is the petitioner's burden, however, to 
demonstrate 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 in their fields or disciplines. The AAO will not presume that every national 
"team" is sutlicientiy exclusive. 
Regarding PNTDT, the petitioner submitted a letter 
stated: 
Becoming a member is a dream for most Filipino Taekwondo enthusiast[ s] but it 
does not come easy. To qualify, an athlete should have won medals or places on 
certain competitions like National Poomsae (Forms) Championship which is held 
once a year. The Qualifying athletes are then screened by the current Team 
members together with national team coaches. Accepted team members then starts 
rigorous training and performances to keep upholding the high standards of 
Philippine Taekwondo. 
who 
Likewise,_did not indicate that the petitioner was a member of PNTDT, let alone explain 
why the petitioner qualified for membership. Furthermore,_statement that "an athlete 
should have won medals or places on certain competitions [emphasis added]," indicates that 
wmnmg in competitions is not necessarily required for membership with PNTDT. 
Moreover, indicates that the athletes are "screened" but provides no further information 
regarding screemng process, so as to demonstrate that outstanding achievements are an essential 
condition for membership. The lack of specific information gives the AAO an insufficient basis to 
determine that membership with PNTDT meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Regarding Team-M, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing his 
membership. However, the petitioner failed to establish that membership with Team-M requires 
outstanding achievements, ~ recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. While_Director of Team-M, briefly discussed the petitioner's 
"effort and commitment" to taekwondo in the United States, he failed to indicate Team-M's 
membership requirements, so as to demonstrate that outstanding achievements are required for 
membership. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter Coach for Team-M, who 
indicated that the Team-M trial contains pre-screemng, practical examination, and formal 
interview stages. Regarding the pre-screening stage, although he indicated that athletes who were 
Page 9 
able to win state, national, or international titles are given higher priority, there is no requirement 
that an athlete must have won any titles. Furthermore, while he indicated that the athlete must 
complete several practical exercises, such as running two miles in under 16 minutes, the AAO is not 
persuaded that minimally completing fixed exercises is indicative of outstanding achievements. 
Finally, he indicated that the last phase was to pass a formal interview. However, he stated that 
there are "no guidelines for the interviewing session and Team-M coaches may choose to discuss 
any Taekwondo topics." Although there is no indication that Team-M coaches are recognized 
national or international experts, the lack of guidelines in the interview process is not reflective of 
outstanding achievements. The petitioner failed to establish that his membership with Team-M 
meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
As indicated above, the petitioner claims that he is a member of the PTBB. However, the petitioner 
did not refer to any documentary evidence to support his assertions, nor does a review of the record 
of proceeding reflect that he is a member of PTBB. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Regardless, the petitioner failed to 
submit any documentary to establish that membership with PTBB requires outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Regarding Letran College, the record of proceeding contains a certificate from Letran College 
certifying that the petitioner was member of the "Taekwondo Varsity Team" at the college. While 
the certificate demonstrates the petitioner's membership with the team, the petitioner failed to 
submit any documentation establishing that outstanding achievements are required for membership 
with the varsity team. Simply submitting evidence of membership is insufficient to meet the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) without evidence reflecting that outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts, are required for 
membership with the association. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. relating fo the alien '.I' work in thefieldfor which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]ublished 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." 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. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
Page 10 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.3 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that "[s]uch 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation." 
In the director's decision, she determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. Specifically, the director stated: 
USCIS advised the petitioner that it requires copies of published material which is 
about him and that sports articles which merely mention him as a competitor would 
not be sufficient. USCIS also advised the petitioner that "the evidence must 
establish that the articles were published in major media" and that "local papers or 
internet postings would not be sufficient." The petitioner's response consisted of a 
resubmission of selected articles which named and/or pictured him, but it cannot be 
found that any of the articles were about him nor did he submit evidence that any of 
the articles were published in major media. Thus, it cannot be found that he met the 
third criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner simply claims that "I have submitted Evidence of published Materials 
showing my skills and my recognitions in the field of Taekwondo." As the petitioner failed to make 
any specific arguments or submitted any additional documentation, the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate that the director erred in her decision for this criterion. 
The AAO notes that a review of the record of proceeding fails to reflect any published material 
about the petitioner relating to his work in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. As indicated by the director, the petitioner submitted various photographs without 
submitting any written, journalistic coverage of the petitioner. A~ the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "published material" and "the title, date, and author 
of the material," the submission of photographs, either posted on the Internet or printed in a 
publication, without published material about the petitioner relating to his work fails to meet the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion. Similarly, captions accompanying photographs that 
rnerely identify the petitioner are not published material about him relating to his work. Likewise, 
material that simply lists the petitioner as one of numerous competitors but is not "published 
material" about the petitioner relating to his work is insufficient to meet the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). For example, the petitioner submitted a screenshot from entitled, 
"UP Bets Shine in Taekwondo Tourney" that indicated in the material that of Army 
edged [the petitioner], 1 - 0." The article is not about the petitioner relatmg to and the 
AAO is not persuaded by articles that briefly mention or list tournament results equate to published 
material. Again, the documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to reflect any published 
material about the petitioner relating to his work. 
J 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 County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside afthat county. 
Page 11 
Notwithstanding the above, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) 
requires the published material to be "in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media." However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that the 
material was published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. In fact, the 
petitioner failed to identify where the material was published for the of the documentation. 
For instance, the petitioner submitted an article entitled, 
While the petitioner indicated that the article was from the "Samsung Best of the Best Taekwondo 
Championships," the petitioner failed to identifY the source of the article, let alone establish that the 
article was published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Moreover, although the petitioner did submit a few articles from Tempo and Manila Bulletin, the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that Tempo and Manila 
Bulletin are professional or major trade publications or other major media. Regardless, the articles 
are not published material about the petitioner relating to his work. Rather, the articles reflect 
photographs or simply list the petitioner as a competitor. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted 
several screenshots from the Internet. However, the AAO is not persuaded that postings on the 
Internet are automatically considered major media. The petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence establishing that the websites, such as http://thelance.com, www.sunstaLcom, and 
www.mb.com. are considered major media. In today's world, many publications, regardless of size 
and distribution, post articles on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to render the "major 
media" requirement meaningless. However, the AAO is not persuaded that international 
accessibility by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given website is "major media." 
Nonetheless, the screenshots simply reflect tournament results and do not reflect published material 
about the petitioner relating to his work. 
As discussed above, the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires 
"[p]ublished 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." In this case, the 
petitioner's documentary evidence fails to reflect published material about him relating to his work 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe 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. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence 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." Based on a review of the record of 
proceeding, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he 
minimally meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Page 12 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In the director's decision, she determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. On appeal, the petitioner claims: 
As a member of the [PNTDT] I have performed in major productions and events for 
the Philippine Taekwondo Associations, I have passed evidence of performances 
such Performances in Florida, Chicago and also leading Performance in the 23'd 
Southeast Asian Games which was held in the Cuneta Astrodome Manila, 
Philippines. 
Currently Member of the California Demonstration Team [CDT] which performs all 
through-out California showcasing incomparable skills of Taekwondo and even 
Performed in the 2010 US [O]pen Taekwondo Championships which was held in 
Las Vegas, Nevada. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[ e ]vidence that the 
alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation [emphasis added]." In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role 
itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien was responsible for the success or standing of the 
organization or establishment. 
Regarding PNTDT, as previously discussed under the membership criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the petitioner failed to submit primary evidence establishing 
that he was a member of PNTDT. Regarding CDT, the petitioner submitted the previously 
mentioned letter (Head Coach of CDT), who briefly stated that the petitioner was 
"one of the core demo " However,_ failed to provide to explain why he 
considered the petitioner a "core" member of eDT. The lack of specific, detailed information is 
insufficient to demonstrate the significance of the petitioner's role. The petitioner failed to submit 
evidence showing his position in relation to that of the other members of the demonstration team. 
There is no evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role differentiated him from the other 
performers. Without evidence establishing that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role, 
it is insufficient to simply submit documentary evidence reflecting that he performed as a member 
of team in a performance setting. As the petitioner is a member of taekwondo demonstration team, 
it is expected that the petitioner will perform the routine duties of a martial artist in front of an 
audience. However, merely performing, even if the performances are considered noteworthy, does 
not equate to a leading or critical role. The petitioner failed to establish that his role in the 
demonstrations were leading or critical. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) also requires the leading or 
critical role be "for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." While 
Page 13 
PNTDT may have a distinguished reputation, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence establishing that CDT has a distinguished reputation. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that 
the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he meets every element 
of this criterion. Without documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has performed in 
a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation, the 
AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. P-1 Nonimmigrant Admission 
The AAO notes that at the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner indicated on Form 1-140 that he 
was last admitted to the United States on June 16, 2006, as a P-1 nonimmigrant, a visa classification 
that requires the alien to perform as an athlete, either individually or as part of a team, at an 
internationally recognized level of performance, and that the alien seeks to enter the United States 
"temporarily and solely for the purpose of performing as such an athlete." See section 214(c)(4)(A) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1184(c)(4)(A). The current record is devoid of any evidence to indicate that 
the petitioner is performing as an athlete at an internationally recognized level or that he is in the 
United States "temporarily and solely" for the purpose of performing as such an athlete. However, 
while USCIS has approved at least one P-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the 
petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after 
USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. 
Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2(03); lKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); 
Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less 
time reviewing 1-129 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&M 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 petitioner'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, 191&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 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). 
Page 14 
Furthennore, 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 
nonimmigrant petition on behalf of the alien, 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.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 20(1), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2(03); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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 the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits 
detennination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (I) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir 1 field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits detennination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(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. 
4 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145. In any 
future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the ottice that made the 
last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 100.5(a)(I)(ii). See also section 100(a)(I) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; 
DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); 
Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BiA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority 
with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
Page 15 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.