dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. CitiLcnship and Immigration Services 
Office oj AdminiSlrariv£' Appeals MS 2090 
Washinglon, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date DEC 1 4 2010 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1153(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.S(a)( 1 lei) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
j)/) ~fJd()ri1L· 
0perry Rhew 
tv 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 August 17,2009, On October 6,2010, the Administrative Appeals Office 
issued a notice of intent to find fraud and material misrepresentation, The matter is now before the 
AAO on appeaL The appeal will be dismissed with a finding of fraud and material misrepresentation. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U .S.c. § 1153(b)( 1 )(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite 
extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and 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 the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(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 objective evidence. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(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, the petitioner argues that he meets the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) for sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement. For the reasons 
discussed below, we uphold the director's decision. 
I, Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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. 
Page 3 
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. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. S9 
(1990); S6 Fed. 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. 
Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(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 classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) 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 allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Page 4 
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. USc/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. March 4,2010). 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.l With respect to the criteria at 8 c.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS 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 "final merits determination." Id. 
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)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of thelirJ field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "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)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.c. § I J53(b)(I)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119 - 1120. 
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 reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 
F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afj'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also SO/lane v. 
DO], 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis ). 
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 5 
II. Derogatory findings pertaining to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
On October 6,2010, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i), this office issued 
a notice advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that he submitted a fraudulent 
letter purportedly written b~on July 17,2009. As the derogatory findings relate to the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), they are material to this proceeding. The AAO's 
notice of derogatory information stated: 
On appeal, you submitted an unsigned July 17,2009 letter of support on International 
Bodyboarding Association ("IBA") letterhead purportedly from 
Women's World Tour Director. This letter was previously submitted in response to 
the director's request for evidence (RFE) dated June 10, 2009. In his July 17, 2009 
letter, Mr. _ purportedly states that you have: 
Judged and directed events at the highest levels of competition as the 
worl[d'is most senior judge. Due to [yourJ experience in the 
administration of the sport and II knowledge of skills in national and 
world competitions, [you were J nominated IBA 2004 to 2006 world 
tour Head Judge and Technical Director. 
Following we cite some of the [petitioner's] accomplishments: 
Brazilian best judge 1089 [sicl, 1990 and 1995. 
Brazilian tour best Head Judge 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2003. 
World bodyboarding international judge 1995 and 1996. 
World bodyboarding international Head Judge 2004 to 2006. 
Award as the best head judge for the 2007 Pipeline Bodyboarding 
World Contest in Hawaii, the sportl's] most prestigious event las] 
recognized by IBA. 
In addition[,] he has appeared on magazines, newspapers and various 
articles concerning the sport of bodyboarding, without mentioning all 
[of! the judging courses to form ani d] train judges for international 
level competitions around the world. 
* * * 
His skills and determination have made him one of the elite Head 
Judges in this field being I sic J considered one of the top four best since 
1995. 
On appeal, you assert that you received an award as the "best head judge at the Pipeline 
World Competition in 2007." You argue that the Pipeline World Competition is an 
- . 
Page 6 
event for the best bodyboarding competitors in the world and that only a "few judges 
and head judges are present." There is no primary, documentary evidence in the record 
of proceeding indicating that you received this award. 
The AAO contacted Mr._ on July 22, 2010 regarding this letter and his e-mail 
response to the AAO's inquiry stated that he did not write the letter dated July 17, 
2009. 
By submitting this document contammg these false claims, it appears you have 
sought to obtain a visa by fraud and willful misrepresentation of a material fact. With 
regard to the above findings, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in tbe record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. /d. at 591. Because you 
have submitted fraudulent documentation, we cannot accord any of your other claims 
any weight. 
AAO's notice, the petltlOner submitted a September 25, 2010 letter from 
International Association Head Judge, IBA Latin America Executive Director, 
International Surfing Association Head Judge, Pan American Surfing Association Head Judge. In 
his letter, Mr. states that the petitioner's credentials and awards include "World Head 
Judge 2004 - 2006, Best Head Judge for the 2008 Pipeline Bodyboarding World Contest in Hawaii; 
and Honorary Member of dedicated service to the IBA and to the Brazilian Bod yboarding 
Conferderation." Mr._also states: 
It is my strong opinion that Mr. _ did not remember or confirm this July 17, 
2009 letter on Ithe petitioner's1 behalf for two reasons: 1) It was quickly written (as 
there was alnl approaching deadline), with much of the supporting evidence 
transferred by myself to Mr. _ office; and 2) the original date for "Best Head 
Judge" was inadvertently typed as "2007" (by [the petitioner]) when, in fact, it should 
have been for the year 2008. 
It can be welll-idocumented that lthe petitioner] entered the United States in 2008 
and such mistake, albeit important, was unintentional. For these two reasons, I can 
confidentially Isic 1 assure you that Mr. _ can currently confirm that he himself 
sent this original letter dated July 17,2009. 
Although Mr._letter addresses the two issues in the AAO's October 6, 2010 notice, there is 
no evidence in the record of proceeding indicating that Mr. _ is an attorney or accredited 
representative authorized to represent the petitioner or for Mr. _ in this matter. Mr. 
iii ••• states that it his "strong opinion" that Mr. forgot that he wrote the letter and 
provides his assurance that Mr. _will currently confirm that he wrote the July 17,2009 letter. 
Page 7 
The petitioner did not submit evidence from Mr. _contradicting his prior statement to the 
AAO. Also, Mr._ statements regarding the best head judge award are not sufficient to 
meet the petitioner's burden. As stated in the notice the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(S) provides 
that USClS may, at any time, request the submission of an original document for review. Simply going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Saffiei, 22 I&N Dec. IS8, 16S (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972». In addition, failure 
to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying 
the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). The petitioner failed to directly respond to our notice himself 
to challenge our allegation of fraudulent submission of evidence and to submit primary documentary 
evidence of the claimed award. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 102.2(a)(2) provides that "Ib]y signing the application or petition, the 
applicant or petitioner. .. certifies under penalty of perjury that the application or petition, and all 
evidence submitted with, either at the time offiling or thereafter, is true and correct." (Emphasis 
added). The actual signature portion of the Form 1-140 at part 8 requires the petitioner to make the 
following affirmation: "I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 
America, that this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." On that basis 
alone, the petitioner must be held responsible for any material misrepresentations contained within 
the record of proceeding. 
As immigration officers USCIS Citizenship and Immigration Appeals Officers and Center 
Adjudications Officers possess the full scope of authority accorded to officers by the relevant 
statutes, regulations, and the Secretary of Homeland Security's delegation of authority. See sections 
101(a)(l8), 100(a), and 287(b) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.I(b), 287.S(a); DHS Delegation Number 
OISO.1 (effective March 1,2003). 
With regard to immigration fraud or material misrepresentation, the Act provides immigration 
officers with the authority to administer oaths, consider evidence, and further provides that any 
person who knowingly or willfully gives false evidence or swears to any false statement shall bc 
guilty of perjury. Section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 13S7(b). Additionally, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security has delegated to USCIS the authority to investigate alleged civil and criminal 
violations of the immigration laws, including application fraud, make recommendations for 
prosecution, and take other "appropriate action." DHS Delegation Number 0 ISO.l at para. (2)(1). 
In the course of performing their duties under the immigration laws and the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA), immigration officers are charged with reviewing evidence and making factual 
determinations or "findings" related to the adjudication of immigration benefits. Under section 557 
of the APA, immigration officers are obligated to ensure that all decisions are a part of the 
administrative record and that the decisions include "a statement of findings and conclusions, and 
the reasons or basis therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the 
record .... " S U.S.C. § S57(c)(3). 
Page 8 
As an issue of fact that is material to an alien's eligibility for the requested immigration benefit or 
that alien's subsequent admissibility to the United States, the administrative findings in an 
immigration proceeding must include specific findings of fraud or material misrepresentation, 
Within the adjudication of the visa petition, a finding of fraud or material misrepresentation will 
undermine the probative value of the evidence and lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Outside of the basic adjudication of visa eligibility, there are many critical functions of the 
Department of Homeland Security that hinge on a finding of fraud or material misrepresentation. 
For example, the Act provides that an alien is inadmissible to the United States if that alien seeks to 
procure, has sought to procure, or has procured a visa, admission, or other immigration benefits by 
fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact. Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1182. 
Additionally, the regulations state that the willful failure to provide full and truthful information 
requested by US CIS constitutes a failure to maintain nonimmigrant status. 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(f). For 
these provisions to be effective, USCIS is required to enter a factual finding of fraud or material 
misrepresentation into the administrative record2 
With regard to the current proceeding, section 204(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
After an investigation of the facts in each case ... the I Secretary of Homeland Security I 
shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien ... in 
behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative specified in section 20 I (b) or is 
eligible for preference under subsection (a) or (b) of section 203, approve the petition .... 
Pursuant to section 204(b) of the Act, US CIS has the authority to issue a determination regarding 
whether the facts stated in a petition filed pursuant to section 203(b) of the Act are true. In the 
present matter, we find that the petitioner submitted a fraudulent letter in response to the director's 
June 10, 2009 RFE and on appeal. 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a 
material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other 
documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is 
inadmissible. 
2 It is important to note that while it may present the opportunity to enter an administrative finding 
of fraud, the immigrant visa petition is not the appropriate forum for finding an alien inadmissible. 
See Matter of 0, 8 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 1959). Instead, the alien may be found inadmissible at a later 
date when he or she subsequently applies for admission into the United States or applies for 
adjustment of status to permanent resident status. See sections 212(a) and 24S(a) of the Act, 8 
U.S.c. §§ I 182(a) and 1255(a). 
Page 9 
Under Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent, a material misrepresentation is one which 
"tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility and which might well have 
resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded." Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436, 447 
(BIA 1961). 
By filing the instant petition and falsely claiming that Mr. _wrote the July 17,2009 letter, the 
petitioner has sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act through willful misrepresentation 
of a material fact. Because the petitioner has failed to provide independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the inconsistencies in the record of proceeding, we find willful material misrepresentation. 
This finding of willful material misrepresentation shall be considered in any future proceeding where 
admissibility is an issue. 
Regarding the instant petition, the petitioner's failure to submit independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the preceding derogatory information seriously compromises the credibility of the petitioner 
and the remaining documentation. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition. See Matter ofBo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. The remaining documentation and the director's 
bases of denial will be discussed below. 
III. Analysis 
This petition, filed on December 4, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a judge and technical director. 
A. Major, internationally recognized award 
The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(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. Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small 
percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation 
permitting eligibility based on a one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only 
a small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 
101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710,1990 WL 200418 at *6739. 
Given that the House Report specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time 
achievement, examples of one-time awards which enjoy major, international recognition may 
include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant for athletics) an Olympic Medal. 
The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be 
a m{~ior, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, 
the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the 
nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash prize. 
While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement 
without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award 
must be internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
Page 10 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he received an award as the "best head judge at the Pipeline World 
Competition in 2007." The petitioner argues that the Pipeline World Competition is an event for the 
best bodyboarding competitors in the world and that . and head judges are present." 
On appeal, the petitioner re-submitted a letter on International Bodyboarding 
Association ("IBA") letterhead stating that the petitioner received an "award as the best head-judge for 
the 2007 Pipeline Bodyboarding World Contest in Hawaii, the sport[' s [ most prestigious event [as [ 
recognized by IBA." According to Mr. description this event is a bodyboarding contest. 
However, neither the petitioner nor Mr. _states how many other head judges were present at the 
2007 Pipeline Bodyboarding World Contest or why an award for "best head-judge" was presented 
during a bodyboarding competition. More importantly, there is no primary documentary evidence in 
the record of proceeding indicating that the petitioner received this award. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter (if" Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of" 
Treasure Craji o/"California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with 
any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence docs 
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. Where a record does 
not exist, the petitioner must submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant 
authority indicating the reason the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time and 
place are available. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The petitioner has not established that evidence of 
his award as a bodyboarding does not exist or cannot be obtained. Further, the letter from Mr. 
_ does not equate to secondary evidence or an affidavit. In this case, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards as 
a bodyboarding judge. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), specifically requires the petitioner's 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized "award." There is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating the petitioner's receipt of this claimed award and no evidence that an award for "best 
head-judge" is recognized beyond the organizing body and therefore commensurate with a major, 
internationally recognized prize or award in the field. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)3 
Documentation of" the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field (d' endeavor. 
1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of 
evidence not discussed in this decision. 
Page 11 
The record contains letters purportedly from dated July 17, 2009
4 
and _ 
_ dated July 16, 2009 stating that the petitioner received the following awards: 
l. Brazilian best judge 1089 I sic], 1990 and 1995; 
2. Brazilian tour best Head Judge 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2003; 
3. Award as the best head judge for the 2007 Pipeline Bodyboarding World Contest; 
The director did not find the petitioner eligible for this criterion, and we note that the petitioner did not 
address or contest the decision of the director for this criterion on appeal. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "ldlocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field of endeavor." In this case, the petitioner failed to establish that these awards equate to lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Furthermore, the petitioner 
did not submit documentary evidence of his receipt of the awards listed. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter (d'Sofjici at 165 (citing Matter of' Treasure Craft of Cali/c)rnia at 190). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Doclimentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jield j()r which 
classification is sought, which reqllire olltstanding achievements of' their members, as 
jlldged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or jields. 
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, 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 record contains a biography for the petitioner stating that the petitioner has been involved with the 
following organizations: 
I. Associacao Paulista de Bodyboarding (APB); 
2. Clube Santista de Bodyhoarding (CSB); 
3. Federacao de Bodyboarding do Estado de Sao Paulo (FEBBESP); 
4. Associacao Brasileira de Bodyboarding (ABRASB); 
5. Confederacao Brasileira de Bodyboarding (CBRASB); 
4 See above for further discussion on Mr._ July 17, 2009 letter. 
Page 12 
6. Uniao Panamericana de Bodyboarding (UPB); 
7. Associacao Paulista de Arbitros de Surf and Bodyboarding (APJS); 
8. Inernational Surfing Association ([SA); 
9. Global Organization of Bodyboarding (GOB); 
10. Association of Women Bodyboarding (A WB); and 
II. International Bodyboarding Association (lBA). 
There is also evidence in the record of proceeding that the petitioner has been involved with the U.S. 
Bodyboarding Association (USBA). 
Although the petitioner lists many organizations, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner is 
a member of thcse organizations or of the membership requirements (such as bylaws or rules of 
admission) for any of the organizations listed. Simply going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter (!f'Sotfici at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California at 190). A petition 
must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § Im.2(b)(\). The 
nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. § Im.2(b)(2)(i). 
In his decision, the director determined that the petitioner failed to submit evidence that he meets this 
criterion. The petitioner did not submit any evidence on appeal. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in prqfessional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author qf the material, and any necessary 
translation 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on the following submitted documentation: 
1. A letter by dated July 17, 2009 stating that the petitioner has 
"appeared on [sic] magazines, newspapers and various articles concerning the 
sport of bodyboarding;" 
2. Photographs of the petitioner in Ride It!, a bodyboarding magazine written in 
Portuguese; and 
3. An article entitled "Bodyboarding and Surfing Rocks Itarare Beach." 
Even if the AAO had not found willful material misrepresentation, the July 17, 2009 letter by _ 
_ is not evidence of published material about the petitioner. Simply going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California at 190). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § Im.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 
Page 13 
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. Here, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
demonstrating the non-existence of primary and secondary evidence in order for us to consider the 
petitioner's third-party letter. 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires that "raIny document containing foreign 
language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the 
translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English." The record of proceeding contains a 
letter signed by dated December 1, 2008 stating that the documents attached "were 
translated from Portuguese to English." The letter signed by Ms. _ does not certify that the 
translations are complete and accurate or that she is competent to translate from Portuguese to English, 
as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). With the exception of item 3, which was written originally in 
the English language, none of the documents submitted by the petitioner contain properly certified 
English language translations. Further, the AAO notes that it is not clear that the articles are about the 
petitioner rather than about his former bodyboarding school. Moreover, the submission of photographs 
fails to meet the plain language of the regulation requiring "published material." The plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about" the petitioner. 
As this criterion specifically requires the title, date, author and any necessary translation, photographs 
do not qualify the petitioner under this criterion. Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will 
not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner docs not 
address the director's findings or provide additional evidence. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence at the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge (It the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization Fir which classification is 
sought. 
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." In this case, the petitioner only submitted letters 
and pictures as evidence of his serving as a bodyboarding judge. The petitioner did not submit primary 
evidence of his participation as a bodyboarding judge. 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. Here, 
the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating the non-existence of primary and 
secondary evidence in order for us to consider the petitioner's third-party letters. 
Page 14 
The director detennined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner does not 
address the director's findings or provide additional evidence. Therefore, the AAO will not discuss this 
criterion further. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of'the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of'major signif'icance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his work as a judge and technical director. We 
cite representative examples below. Talent and success in judging bodyboarding competitions. 
however, are not necessarily indicative of original contributions of major significance in the field. The 
record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original contributions that have significantly 
influenced or impacted his field. 
In his July 17,2009 letterS, Mr. _ states that the petitioner has: 
Judged and directed events at the highest levels of competition as the worl[d'ls most senior 
judge. Due to lthe petitioner's] experience in the administration of the Sp011 and his 
knowledge of skills in national and world competitions, he was nominated IBA 2004 to 2006 
world tour head judge and technical director. 
Following we cite some of the I petitioner's I accomplishments: 
Brazilian best judge 1089 [sic I. 1990 and 1995. 
Brazilian tour best head judge 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2003. 
World bodyboarding international judge 1995 and 1996. 
World bodyboarding international head judge 2004 to 2006. 
Award as the best head judge for the 2007 Pipeline Bodyboarding World Contest in Hawaii, 
the sport[' s I most prestigious event [as I recognized by IBA. 
In addition[, 1 he has appeared on [sic 1 magazines, newspapers and various articles 
concerning the sport of bodyboarding, without mentioning all lof] the judging courses to 
form ani dl train I sic ] judges for international level competitions around the world. 
* * * 
His skills and determination have made him one of the elite head judges in this field being 
[sic] considered one of the top four best since 1995. 
S See above for further discussion on Mr._July 17, 2009 letter. 
Page 15 
In his July 4, 2008 letter, Mr. _wrote that the petitioner's "extensive experience judging has 
enabled him to be accepted on the panel of elite judges considered for selection for world tour 
events. " 
Mr. _ owner a manufacturer of bodyboards, states that he and the 
petitioner have had a partnership since 1998 and that his company sponsored events organized by the 
petitioner throughout Brazil. 
Mr. IBA, states that "like [in) many 
from various countries for all 
competitions." the petitioner was selected as an 
international judge for the 2008 International Pipeline Pro event. 
In her letter dated July 3, 2008, M Executive Secretary of the Association of 
Women Bodyboarders ("AWB"), states that "as one of only 10 world championship qualified judges 
Ithe petitioner] has been selected to be on our judlgling panel for the 2009 event." 
The record of proceeding contains two letters from Mr. manager of the U.S. 
Bodyboarding Association National Championship Tour. In his letter dated November 20, 2008. 
Mr. _ states that the petitioner is a "huge asset to the tour as he has been trained on a world­
class level to be a bodyboardingjudge. This is a rarity in the United States and lal staffing need to 
our tour." Mr. _also states that in 2007, the petitioner showed that he was "one of the most 
talented judgers] in the world and Ihe) is able to fill a needed position as judge, head judge, and 
technical director at the following events on the USBA." Mr. _listed 26 events scheduled for 
2009. The events listed were to take place in Hawaii, California, New York, and New Jersey. 
In his letter dated July 18,2008, Mr._ stated that the petitioner "was considered the best judge 
and head judge for several years during the 90s by the Brazilian Bodyboarding Confederation" and 
was "considered the best head judge at the 2007 world bodyboarding contest at Pipeline in Hawaii."" 
Mr._also stated that: 
Bodyboarding as a [sic] organized sport is growing fast in the United States and Ithe 
petitioner's) knowledges [sic) and skills will be an important asset to the upcoming USBA 
plans as he could held [sic] the technical affairs of the association as well as be our main 
head judge and still lead some training and teach some classes to form [sic I new judges and 
to help USBA to rule [sic] and coordinate the growth of body boarding in the United States. 
Although speak admirably of the 
petitioner and his skills, their letters do not provide specific examples of the petitioner's original 
contributions that have significantly impacted the petitioner's field. 
6 The AAO notes that Mr. _did not mention that the petitioner received an award recognizing 
him as the best head judge and instead stated that the petitioner was "considered the best head 
judge." 
Page 16 
The preceding letters of support submitted by the petitioner describe him as a talented and successful 
judge, but they do not specify exactly what his original contributions in the sport have been, nor is 
there an explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. It 
is not enough to be a talented judge and to have others attest to that talent. An alien must have 
demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of his references, 
there is no evidence demonstrating that he has made original athletic contributions of major 
significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's 
influence on other judges nationally or internationally, nor does it show the field has specifically 
changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, 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. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how 
they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 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 that one would expect of a bodyboarding judge who 
has made original contributions of major significance. Without extensive documentation showing 
that the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major significance in his field, we 
cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perjc)rmed in a leading or critical role for organizatiolls or 
establishmellts that have a distill/iuished reputation 
In his decision dated August 17, 2009, the director determined that the petitioner did not establish that 
he meets this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner does not provide additional evidence or address this 
criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3). 
C. Final Merits Determination 
Page 17 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination 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[irl field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 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." See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § JJ53(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at *3. 
In this case, the specific deficiencies in the petitioner's documentation have already been addressed 
in our discussion of the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3). The submitted evidence is 
not indicative of the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim as a judge and technical 
director and there is no indication that his individual achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation. 
We cannot ignore that the statute requires that the petitioner submit "extensive documentation" of 
the his sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(I )(A) of the Act. The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(I )(A)(i) of the Act provide that 
the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in 
this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" 
for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). The petitioner failed to submit 
evidence demonstrating that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field." In addition, the petitioner has not demonstrated a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19,1990). 
The AAO notes that the petitioner is currently in the United States on a B-2 visa. Although the 
petitioner claims to be the best bodyboarding judge, the record of proceeding contains no evidence of 
the number of bodyboarding judges or bodyboarding head judges in the world. Other than reference 
letters mentioning his receipt of an award as the "2007 best head judge," the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence showing his position relative to that of other bodyboarding judges. As stated 
previously, there is no evidence indicating that the petitioner's "2007 best head judge" award is 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or being among that small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted several reference letters praising his talents as a judge. However, none of 
the letters submitted provided the requirements necessary for serving as a bodyboarding judge or 
head judge. Ms. _letter stated that the petitioner was "one of only J 0 world championship 
qualified judges," but did not state the requirements for a "world championship qualified judge." 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the 
aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Page 18 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner 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 petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore. the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203 (b)(1 )(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
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 at 1043, affd. 345 
F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DO], 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate 
review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 V.S.c. § 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: 
FURTHER ORDER: 
The appeal is dismissed with a finding of fraud and willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. 
The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted fraudulent 
documentation in an effort to mislead USCIS and the AAO on 
elements material to his eligibility for a benefit sought under the 
immigration laws of the United States.