dismissed EB-1A Case: Water Polo

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-R-0-D-F-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 6, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professional water polo player, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(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 show his intent to continue to work in his area of expertise or that his entry into the United States 
will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents additional documentation and a brief stating that he will engage in 
employment in the United States in the area of water polo. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of D-R-0-D-F-
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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement that is a major, 
internationally recognized award. Alternatively, he or she must provide 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). In addition, if a petitioner 
demonstrates that the listed criteria do not readily apply to his or her occupation, then he or she may 
submit comparable evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). 
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. 201 0). 1 
This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of 
evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of 
the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a professional water polo player, did not indicate that he received a major, 
internationally recognized award, but contended that he satisfied at least three of the alternate 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, he stated that he met the awards 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the 
published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the leading or critical role criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director found that the Petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under three of the evidentiary 
categories identified above. He did not, however, render a final merits determination in accordance 
with the Kazarian opinion that considered whether the Petitioner's evidence demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor," 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. Rather, the Director found the 
Petitioner's evidence insufficient to demonstrate that he intended to work in his field of expertise or 
that his entry into the United States would bring a substantial benefit prospectively to the country. 
The Director denied the petition on these issues without first analyzing the Petitioner's 
1 
This case discusses a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. See also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D. D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011). 
2 
.
Matter of D-R-0-D-F-
accomplishments and weighing the totality of the evidence to determine if his successes are 
sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See id. 
In order to qualify for the requirements of section 203(b )(2)(B) of the Act, a petitioner must shmv 
that: (1) he has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, (2) he 
seeks to enter the United States to continue his work in his area of extraordinary ability, and (3) he 
will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Here, the Director did not consider 
whether the Petitioner is an individual of extraordinary ability before deciding whether he intends to 
continue to work in the United States in her area of expertise. However, the Director's omission is 
harmless because we conduct a de novo review, evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in the record 
according to its probative value and credibility. 
We notified the Petitioner of the deficiencies in the record through a request for evidence (RFE), and 
afforded him time to supplement the record with additional documentation. Upon review, we find that 
the record as presently constituted is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner satisfies at least 
satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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). 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has received multiple certi±l.cates, awards and medals 
from entities including the and the 
The Petitioner therefore satisfies this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jieldfor vvhich classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner claims that he was a member of the on 
multiple occasions beginning in the early 2000s. He submitted a letter from 
Director of and former head 
confirms that the Petitioner was a member ofthe coach ofthe team. 
team on multiple occasions, and states "the country selects a new for each major 
international competition based on qualifying times." He also states that is the entity that 
selects the which he describes as "a group of highly qualified experts in the field." 
In response to our RFE, the Petitioner submits a second letter signed by three officials of 
The letter states that "are selected by in accordance with the 
rules." The letter further states that "[t]he rules for 
selection to the are prescribed by the Director of 
and he is an expert in the field." 
3 
.
},,fatter of D-R-0-D-F-
Upon review, the record does not include sufficient evidence, such as team rosters or statistics, to 
corroborate the claims that that the Petitioner was a former member of 
team. In addition, the Petitioner has not established that the individuals who selected him to be 
a team member are "recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields," as 
required under this criterion. While we note assertion that is an expert in 
the field, there is no independent documentary evidence to support this statement. While various 
articles submitted into the record identify as the former coach of the 
team, there is no documentation to confirm his credentials and experience such that he can be 
deemed a recognized national or international expert in his field. 
Finally, the record lacks evidence demonstrating the manner in which the national water polo team 
selects its members. As noted above, indicated that selection to each 
was based on "qualifying times." Although the second letter submitted in response to the 
RFE indicates that selection is made in accordance with rules, the Petitioner did not 
supplement the record with copies of those rules or other guidelines to outline the actual selection 
process. It appears based on assertions in the record that selection to the does not 
involve the actual judging of outstanding achievements by recognized national or international 
experts, but rather is based on national rankings, qualifying times, and winning records. 
The record also contains a letter from coach ofthe 
Team. confirms that the Petitioner was a member of the university's 
team from 2011 to 2014. HO\vever, as with the there is no evidence 
demonstrating that selection to the university team is judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. Although claims that he qualifies as an expert 
because he has been head coach of water polo team for 26 years, won divisional 
championships, and has a total of wins, there is no independent evidence corroborating that he is 
a recognized national or international expert in the field. Moreover, in a second letter submitted in 
response to our RFE, he claims that "it is up to the expertise and experience of the coaching staff to 
develop membership criteria for athletes." While he provided an overvie\v of the selection criteria, 
which includes evaluation of speed and endurance tests, scrimmages, past experiences, and general 
compliance with requirements such as academic eligibility, there is no indication that 
recognized national or international experts in the field of water polo judge the achievements of 
these potential members. 
Absent corroborating evidence regarding the qualifications and claimed expertise of the coaching 
staff, we cannot determine that either the or the team require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
4 
.
Matter of D-R-0-D-F-
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's V.'ork in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not satisfY this criterion, and we agree with that 
determination. Although he submitted several articles regarding his athletic performances published 
in various forms of media, including the sports page, and on various web pages, 
the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that these articles appeared in professional publications, 
major trade publications, or other major media as required under the regulation. The Petitioner does 
not address this criterion or offer further evidence to rebut these findings on appeal or in response to 
our RFE.2 Therefore, absent additional evidence, he has not demonstrated 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. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner claims that his position as goalkeeper on both the and the 
teams demonstrate that he has performed in a leading and critical role. 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role should 
be apparent from the Petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The 
Petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for the organization 
or establishment as a whole. 
Here, the evidence of record is insufficient to satisfy this criterion. The Petitioner submitted a letter 
from president, which states that as a goalkeeper for the 
he occupied an "essential" and "the most important position" on the team. While 
assertions are noted, his letter falls short of providing probative information that 
specifically addresses how the Petitioner's role was critical for each of the for which 
he played. We cannot presume that he performed in a leading or critical role simply by his title of 
goalkeeper within the organization; additional probative, corroborating evidence must also be part of 
the record. 
In response to our RFE, the Petitioner submitted a second letter from which states that he 
"has played a critical role for the because he has won medals and lead 
2 
In response to our RFE, the Petitioner submits an article in the featuring a photograph of him playing 
water polo at the age of 16, and indicates that the article is submitted for consideration under the leading and critical role 
criterion. Nevertheless, we note that this article would not satisfy the instant criterion because the copy provided does 
not clearly identify the date of publication and the name of the article's author as the typeface is too small and thus 
illegible. Moreover, the single photograph of the Petitioner appears in an article about summer camps and does not 
appear to constitute published material about him in the field of water polo as contemplated by the criterion. 
5 
.
Matter of D-R-0-D-F-
[sic] the to numerous victories. " The Petitioner must provide specifics relating to 
how his role was critical to the organization as a whole. See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 
535 , 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Simply claiming that he won numerous medals and led his team to 
numerous victories , without more, falls short of providing probative information that specifically 
addresses how the Petitioner's role was critical for the team. 
We note assertion in response to our RFE that the Petitioner is "more important than the 
other team members because he can score for his team but he is also the only one who can block 
goals past the defense line ." However , the letters considered above do not specifically state how the 
Petitioner ' s contributions as a goalkeeper (of which there are two to a team) impacted the team as a 
whole and thus establish a critical role. 
Similarly, the letters from do not specifically detail the manner in which the 
Petitioner's role was leading or critical to the team. He states in response to our RFE that the 
Petitioner "was a leading and critical force for the team , especially in our defensive efforts ," and 
provides a list of successes for the team which he claims are directly attributable to the Petitioner ' s 
"critical role as a goalie," yet provided no additional explanation regarding these achievements. 
Furthermore , a review of the list indicates that many of the listed achievements are attributable to the 
Petitioner individually , such as his awards of the " and 
The record does not explain how the Petitioner's 
individual achievements constitute a leading or critical role for the team as a whole. 
Even if the Petitioner had demonstrated that his role was leading or critical as contemplated by this 
criterion , he must also demonstrate that the organizations have a distinguished reputation . The record , 
however, contains insufficient evidence to establish that these teams are organizations with a 
distinguished reputati on. While the Petitioner submitted a copy of the 
record book outlining the team ' s accomplishments over the years, there is no independent 
documentation establishing that this team enJoys a distinguished reputation independent of the 
univ ersity. Likewise , the record contains no evidence demonstrating that the 
enjo ys a distinguished reputation as contemplated by the regulation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) (i)-(x). Thus , we do not need to fully address the totalit y of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 119-20. 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. In addition , as the 
Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act, we 
need not determine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability " 
under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii). 
Matter of D-R-0-D-F-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-R-0-D-F-, ID# 671253 (AAO Mar. 6, 2018)