dismissed EB-1A Case: Weightlifting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6084446 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 24, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a weightlifter, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 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 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 they 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 is an I I weightlifter. The record contains a letter from I I (New 
Jersey) Weightlifting Club, indicating that the Petitioner "is a full-time athlete in good standing enrolled 
in our elite athlete program, and is welcome to continue his involvement indefinitely." It is not clear from 
this letter whether the Petitioner is an employee of the club or a client taking classes there. The record 
indicates that"[ v ]olunteers ... maintain the facility," with no indication of how many paid employees (if 
any) work there. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met one of the evidentiary 
criteria, relating to prizes and awards. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets four further 
evidentiary criteria, discussed below. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that 
the Petitioner meets two of the criteria (relating to prizes and to judging). 
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 Director found that the Petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion. We agree, but we note 
that the Petitioner's evidence includes printouts from the website of the International Weightlifting 
Federation (IWF). The IWF printouts identify six events in which the Petitioner competed, including the 
following information: 
Year Event Rank 
2009 5 
2010 4 
2011 2 
2011 16 
2013 DSQ 
2015 DSQ 
2 
Printouts from the website of the International Wrestling Results Project show the results from 2013 and 
2014, with the Petitioner's results printed in a lighter color, and struck through (e.g.," "). This is a 
further indication that the Petitioner's disqualification invalidated his scores. 
The Petitioner states that he "became the winner of.__ ____ __, Tournaments in 2016-2017," but 
submits no documentary evidence to support this claim or to show that the claimed tournament prizes are 
nationally or internationally recognized. 
Letters and published articles in the record refer to the Petitioner's participation in the 2013 and 2015 
events, but not to the Petitioner's disqualifications and forfeiture of any medals or other prizes that the 
Petitioner may have won in those competitions. 1 Had this case proceeded to a final merits determination, 
we would have taken into consideration that the Petitioner apparently has not competed in IWF events, 
without disqualification, since 2011, six years before he filed the petition. 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
j copy If an apparently unsigned letter attributed to thel I 
states that the Petitioner "became a member of thel !Team in 
2009," and that "[t]he criteria for membership for the beneficiary's level of membership in the team ... 
were demonstration of outstanding achievements in the field of weightlifting as judged by the nationally 
and internationally recognized experts in the field of weightlifting." Merely repeating the language of 
the statute or regulations does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990). The letter noted that an 
Olympic gold medalist is also a member, but this does not demonstrate or imply that members must 
reach a comparable level of achievement. 
The letter further stated: "We are unable to provide copies of the team's rules or organizational 
documents as these are not open to the public according to the Georgian law." The letter did not cite 
or identify any statute or regulation prohibiting disclosure of those materials. In immigration 
proceedings, the law of a foreign country is a question of fact which must be proven if a petitioner 
relies on it to establish eligibility for an immigration benefit. Matter of Annang, 14 I&N Dec. 502 
(BIA 1973). An unsigned letter referring to an unidentified law cannot meet the Petitioner's burden 
of proof. 
The letter from thel ldoes not identify the outstanding achievements that purportedly qualified the 
Petitioner for team membership. The letter lists various competitions that the Petitioner won and indicates 
that "he was also nominated to represent Georgia at the I I 
Championships," but all of these events occurred after 2009, when the Beneficiary was already a member 
of the I I. 
1 The record is inconsistent regarding the 2013 and 2015 competitions, variously indicating that the Beneficiary won bronze 
or silver medals. 
3 
We note that the letter attributed to thel l dated March 2017, mentions the Petitioner's participation 
in the 201 sl I Championships, but not his disqualification from that event. 
We agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner has not established membership in any association 
that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
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 necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be 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. 
In J I 2016, a profile of the Petitioner, calling him.__ ___________ ____.' appeared 
in Public Education. That publication circulates 3000 copies, with a "Target Audience [ consisting of] 
schools, higher education institutions, education professionals, [ and] readers interested in education." As 
described, Public Education is not a trade publication relating to weightlifting in particular or athletics in 
general. 
The Georgian sports newrpaper le/a interviewed the Petitioner on various occasions between 2009 and 
2017, and profiled him in 2016. Background information indicated that Lela has a circulation of 
between 2000 and 2500 copies. The Lela articles do not identify an author, as required by the plain 
language of this criterion; translations show a collective credit to the newspaper's editorial board, without 
identifying the board's members. 
Initially, the Petitioner cited Georgia's total 2017 population (3. 72 million), but did not provide circulation 
data for other Georgian publications to provide context or show the significance of the circulation figures 
for Lela and Public Education. On appeal, the Petitioner submits what he calls a "Market Research 
Survey" of "104 Georgian natives," indicating that nearly 80% of the respondents would be more likely 
to purchase Lela than other Georgian sports newspapers. 
The circumstances surrounding the survey are questionable. The survey results were compiled in 
November 2018, while the petition was pending and after the Director had first raised questions about 
Lela's status as major media. The survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey, a service that allows users 
to design and distribute customized online surveys; the record does not reveal who commissioned the 
survey or how the respondents were chosen. The survey, therefore, does not provide sufficient relevant 
data to establish that Lela is a major sports newspaper as claimed. 
The Petitioner also submits evidence that Lela has been published, under various names, since 1934, but 
the age of the publication is not relevant to its status as a major trade publication or other major media. 
4 
A study of Georgian media, also submitted on appeal, cites estimated circulation figures of"from 5,000 
to 12,000 copies" for"[ m ]ajor newspapers," and states: "Regional newspapers have lower circulation, at 
about 2,000 to 3,000." The cited circulation figures for Lela are on the lower end of the latter, smaller 
range. 
A translated online profile of Lela and its publisher states: "The online versions of the Lelo publications 
are being posted on sportall.ge (http://sportall.ambebi.ge/)."2 
Another article submitted on appeal reports competition results rather than focuses on the Petitioner, and 
several submitted articles are in Georgian without the English translations required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). Further, the submissions on appeal include articles from publications which the Petitioner 
has not shown to be professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
For all of the reasons described above, the Petitioner has not shown that he meets the requirements of 
this criterion. 3 
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 specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not met the requirements of this criterion. We disagree. 
In separate letters, the president and general secretary ofthel I attested that the Petitioner had served 
as a referee at several specific national-level weightlifting tournaments, including serving as a "chief 
judge" or "chief referee" with responsibility to "adjudicate final results of a competition." This 
responsibility to decide the outcome of an event indicates a level of judging authority beyond simple 
enforcement of rules, and thus meets the plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. See 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWU 
v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
2 We note that a search of that site for the Petitioner's surname, 'c==J" yields 12 results, none of them matching the articles 
submitted by the Petitioner. The only article that mentions the Petitioner, rather than another athlete with the same surname, 
does so in the context of a list of results rather than an a1ticle specifically about the Petitioner. 
3 We note that although some of the submitted articles postdate the Petitioner's disqualifications, none of them mention 
these significant events in his career as a weightlifter. Thus there is reason to question the provenance of those a11icles 
and the circumstances under which they were published. 
5 
The Petitioner cites letters, discussed above, indicating that he has won various competitions. A different 
criterion, however, already covers prizes and awards. To assert that evidence under one criterion (prizes) 
inherently satisfies another criterion (contributions) is to undermine the statutory requirement for 
extensive documentation. The record does not identify any original contributions that the Petitioner made 
while competing. 
Furthermore, as noted above, the Petitioner's most recent documented results from international 
competition have been stricken through disqualification. The submitted letters list the Petitioner's 2013 
and 2015 competitions, but do not acknowledge the disqualification of those results. The Petitioner does 
not explain how disqualified results could constitute contributions to his field. 
The head coach of the I I states that the Petitioner's "particular style and techniques" amount to 
contributions, but he provides no further details as to what those techniques are, or how they differ from 
other techniques used in the sport. He also does not say how those techniques have influenced the field; 
speculation that the Petitioner's "expertise ... will ... inspire others to compete in this challenging field" 
cannot establish major significance. 
The Petitioner has not established that he has made original contributions of major significance to his 
field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In his initial submission, the Petitioner asserts that he has played a leading or critical role for the I~--~ I I but he does not specify what that role was. Instead, the Petitioner refers to 
letters and background information about the team. The submitted letters do not indicate that the 
Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for the team or for any other entity. 
The Petitioner has not revisited this claim, either in response to a request for evidence or on appeal. 
Because the Petitioner has not contested this finding on appeal, he has effectively abandoned it. 
See Sepulveda v. US. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); see also, Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). 
B. Continued Work/Prospective Benefit 
As explained above, the evidence that the Petitioner has submitted does not establish eligibility for the 
benefit sought, and we will dismiss the appeal based on that evidence. But beyond the Director's 
decision, we note additional information that affects the Petitioner's ability both to continue working 
in the field, and to prospectively benefit the United States, as required under the Act. 
Because the record shows significant gaps in the Petitioner's competitive history, and two 
disqualifications in international competition, we consulted the IWF's website, identified in printouts 
that the Petitioner submitted. The "Sanctioned Athletes" page of that website 4 shows that the Petitioner 
was suspended from international competition froml I 2013 tol I 2015, and again from 
4 https://www.iwf.nd~----~sanctions/ (visited Jan. 8, 2020). 
6 
~-~[ 2015 td I 2023, forl Jviolations. Further research revealed that the Court of Arbitration 
for Sport (CAS) indicated that the suspension included "the disqualification of results and the forfeiture 
of all medals, points and prizes."5 
Because the Petitioner has been suspended from international competition since 2013 ( except for less 
than a month inl 12015) and will not be eligible to compete internationally until 2023, questions 
necessarily arise as to how he will be able to compete at a high level and substantially benefit the United 
States. (The suspension would also impede the Petitioner's ability to sustain national or international 
acclaim in athletics, if the Petitioner had demonstrated such acclaim in the first place.) 
The Petitioner's omission of this highly significant and relevant information casts doubt on the credibility 
of not only his own assertions, but also every letter and media article written after the suspension was 
imposed, but which does not acknowledge that suspension. Withholding or concealing such information 
is not simply a matter of focusing on the most favorable information; rather, it borders on 
misrepresentation because it is essential to a proper understanding of the Petitioner's reputation and 
standing in his field. 
Any future filings by the Petitioner, such as a motion to reopen this proceeding or a petition to initiate a 
new one, must fully account for this information, and account for how his purported national or 
international acclaim has survived and overcome a major disciplinary action by the sport's international 
governing body. Any such filing must also explain why the Petitioner did not fully disclose a suspension 
that was in effect at the time of filing, and which remains in effect now and years into the future. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, 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. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The CAS decision is available at https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents~df (visited Jan. 8, 2020). 
7