dismissed EB-1A Case: Water Polo Coach

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 4992052 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 7, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a water polo coach , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy any of the initial evidentiary criteria , of which she must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establi sh eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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. 
The tenn "extraordinary ability " refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2) . The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis . First , a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claims to be an athletic instructor at the I !Water Polo Club in I I 
Kazakhstan. 1 Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner does not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion 
of law or statement of fact for the appeal. Instead, the Petitioner submits additional documentation 
indicating eligibility under three criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence, we conclude that the 
record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she received the prizes or awards, 
and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or 
international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 3 
The record reflects that the Petitioner reviously provided identification cards showing that she 
received a "rank" of Republic of Kazakhstan" in 2009 and a "rank" of j I 
~-------------~ Republic of Kazakhstan" in 2010.4 On appeal, the Petitioner 
1 See the Petitioner's Form T-485, Application to Register Permanent Resident or Adjust Status, filed concurrently with her 
petition. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 Id. 
4 We note that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services AFM provides: 
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international acclaim as an athlete and 
has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching/managing at a national level, adjudicators can consider 
2 
indicates that as evidence of a nationally recognized award, she submits an "[ o ]rder of the Minister of 
Culture and Sport of the Republic of Kazakhstan of October 28, 2014 detailing the standards and 
requirements for assignments of sports titles, categories and qualification[] categories" and 
"[b ]ackground information on Republican Center for Legal Information of the Ministry of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan publishing the fovernment orders." Specifically, in order to receive the title, 
j of the Republic of Kazakhstan," a participant on a team must 
place between first and eighth place at the Olympic Games, between first and sixth place at the World 
Championships, between first and third in the World Cup, first at the Asian Adult Games, or between 
first and third at the World Junior Championships. In addition, in order to receive the title, 'I I I lof the Republic of Kazakhstan," a participant on a team must place between first and fourth 
at the Russian Championships, between first and fourth at the Open Cup of Russia, first in the Asian 
Championships among juniors, between first and fourth at the World Junior Championship, or first at 
the Championship of Kazakhstan. 
Although the Petitioner presents evidence regarding the assignment of sports titles and rankings, she 
did not demonstrate that the water polo field recognizes such titles and rankings as prizes or awards 
for excellence. Moreover, while the documentation reflects designation of rankings by the Minister 
of Culture and Sports of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Petitioner did not show that such government­
based titles are necessarily recognized by the field for excellence. In addition, as indicated above, a 
participant may obtain such ranking without receiving a nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award for excellence, such as eighth place at the Olympic Games. 5 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish which prizes or awards she received to achieve a j I ~---~I ranking. Specifically, the record contains photographs of medals without showing the 
names, finishes, and/or events. Although the Petitioner previously claimed that she received a 
"Medal" at the World Championship, Asian Swimming Championship, Asian Championship, Asian 
Water Polo Championship, the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented her receipt of the medals, 
where she placed, and the national or international significance of the medals. 
Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate her receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field, she did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner does not satisfy the awards criterion. Although she submits evidence for 
two additional criteria on appeal, relating to memberships at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and high salary 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), we need not reach these additional grounds. As the Petitioner cannot 
fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve 
the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary 
ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of expertise. 
AFM ch. 22.22(i)(l)(C) (emphasis in original). 
5 The Olympic Games only distribute gold, silver, and bronze medals for finishing first, second, and third, respectively. 
See https://www.olympic.org/olympic-results and incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
3 
these issues. 6 Accordingly, we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the 
aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the acclaim 
and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner has competed and coached in the water polo area, the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence establishing that she is among the upper echelon in her field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
4