dismissed EB-1A Case: Weightlifting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8868195 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 6, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an athlete competing in weightlifting , 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 met the initial evidentiary requirement of either a one-time achievement 
or meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . In addition, 
the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that be will continue to work in his area of 
expertise under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(b)(5) . The Petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to 
reopen and reconsider , and submitted new evidence including an offer of prospective employment. 
While the Director acknowledged that this evidence established the Petitioner's intent to continue 
competing as a weightlifter , he also found that other additional evidence was sufficient to establish 
that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements . The Petitioner now appeals that decision . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish 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 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 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 is a weightlifter who has been participating in national and international tournaments 
for several years. While he initially stated his intent to both coach and compete, he indicated that he 
did not intend to pursue coaching in his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), and 
provided the prospective job offer letter mentioned above on motion. 
A. One Time Achievement 
Although the Petitioner did not claim to have earned a major, internationally-recognized award on 
motion, he now reasserts the claim he made in response to the Director's RFE. He asserts that the 
bronze medal he received in the 2013....._ ______ ......,,.--......,,.--------'/ World 
Championships in thel I division is comparable to an Olympic medal, since this tournament 
involved the same world-class level of competition as the Olympic Games. However, as noted in the 
Director's decision, while neither the pertinent statute nor the regulations identify a particular prize or 
award which qualifies as a one time achievement, the House Report specifically cited to the Nobel 
Prize as an example of a one-time achievement. 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. Like other examples including the Pulitzer 
Prize, the Academy Awards and Olympic medals, the selection of Nobel Laureates is reported in the 
top media on an international basis and reflects a familiar name to the public at large. While we do 
not question the caliber of competition at the annual0World Championships, the record does not 
include evidence demonstrating that it receives the same level of recognition beyond the sport of 
weightlifting to the public ~e. The Petitioner submitted evidence of articles regarding his and his 
teammates victories at thel__JW orld Championships in newspapers inl I but he did not 
submit evidence showing the same level of broad international press coverage given to the Olympic 
Games. We therefore find that he has not established that he as earned a major, internationally­
recognized award. 
2 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not 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 his receipt of 
lesser natrnally~d internationally recognized awards. Based ur,on his receipt of medals at the 2013 
and 2014 orld Championships, as well as in the 2014 I I we agree with the 
Director's finding regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that he also meets the following additional evidentiary criteria: 
• Documentation of the his 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). 
• Published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to his 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. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
• Evidence of original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
• Evidence that he has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner does not satisfy the 
requisite three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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 previously claimed to meet this criterion in his initial filing, but did not address this 
claim in his combined motion to reopen and reconsider. He now reiterates this claim on appeal. The 
record indicates that the Petitioner competed as a member of thel I national weightlifting 
team for several years. Although he does not refer to evidence to establish that the team requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
weightlifting experts, in his appeal brief: his initial filing included evidence submitted in support of 
his claim to meet these requirements. Specifically, he referred to several different reference letters 
two of which were submitted by officers of the Weightlifting Federrat=io=n=,(., _______ ____r 
Although the letter froml lvice President of~------,, speaks mainly of the 
Petitioner's participation from 2013, the letter from.__ _____ __, indicates that he has been a 
member of the national team since 2008. These letters are consistent with the evidence of the 
Petitioner's participation in international tournaments during this period. 
As to whether membership on the national weightlifting team of I I requires outstanding 
achievements, the Petitioner submitted a document titled "Resolution About Approval of the General 
Principles and Criteria of Forming of Lists of Candidates for Sports Teams '--------~ 
3 
.__ ___ ..... I.. the Procedure for Approval of the List." We note that the effective date of this resolution 
is October 26, 2017, which means that the Petitioner would have been subject to these rules for national 
team selection while competing in the 201 ~World Championships. Chapter 2 of the resolution 
indicates that the candidate lists for members of the national sports teams "are formed based on the 
results of participation of athletes in the official republican or international sports competitions during 
the previous season," and that they include "athletes who have reached the highest level" in those 
events. Chapter 3 further describes the approval of the list of team members for each team. Based 
upon this evidence, the Petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In his initial decision, the Director determined that the articles initially submitted were not about the 
Petitioner, but merely mentioned him and reported the results of competitions. He also found that 
most of this evidence did not include the required date and author information, and was not published 
in a qualifying type of media under this criterion. With respect to the evidence submitted on motion, 
the Director found the transcripts of a televised interview of the Petitioner to not have been published 
in a qualifying medium, and to be from an unverifiable source. 
Upon review of the evidence submitted with the initial petition, in response to the Director's RFE, and 
with motion to reopen and reconsider, we find that some of the published articles are about the 
Petitioner. Specifically, an article published in the newspaper Sport on I 12014 reports his 
receipt of a bronze medal in the 2014,.__ ___ ~~ and includes an interview of him about the 
tournament and future prospects for the national weightlifting team. Another article in the 
same publication, issued on~----~2013, is about the Petitioner and another weightlifter 
receiving honorary titles as a result of their victories in the 2013c=]w orld Championships. Both 
articles include the required date and author information. 
However, the evidence does not establish that Sport is a professional publication, intended for those 
engaged in a profession as opposed to the public at large, or that it is a major trade publication. 
Regarding its status as a major medium, the evidence indicates that it is distributed "along the all 
branch [sic] of national airline! [" and that the weekly editions noted above had circulation 
of 5000 and 7000 copies, respectively. However, the record does not include circulation data for other 
print media inl lby which it could be determined whether Sport is a major medium. We 
note that an article posted on the website of the Ministry of Physical Education and Sports of the 
I llists Sport among five other publications focusing on sports reporting. But 
the article does not provide circulation statistics for any of these publications, and while it notes that 
the list is a "rating" of newspapers, there is no evident score or other value assigned to the publications 
in the list, or any other information relevant to the determination of whether the publications qualify 
as major media. 
Regarding the other articles in the record published in print or online media, we agree with the Director 
that none are about the Petitioner. For example, an article published in the newspaper People's Voice 
onl 12014 is titled 'I r2014: Success of our Athletes," and includes a single 
4 
sentence reoorting the Petitioner's results. Another article in the same newspaper published on 
I f 2013 includes a decree from the President ofl I awarding an honorary title to the 
Petitioner for hisc=] World Championship results, but unlike the article in Sport noted above does 
not provide farther information about the Petitioner or his career as a weightlifter. As noted by the 
Director, articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding 
that articles about a show are not about the actor). Similar articles in other newspapers in the record 
are also not about the Petitioner. 
Turning to the transcripts of what the Petitioner describes as a broadcast documentary about him, titled 
I I' they show the Petitioner being interviewed and filmed as he trains. 
It is therefore about the Petitioner and his work as a weightlifter. As to whether this material was 
published in a major medium, the Director noted in his decision that the date and author information 
was not included, and that the source of the transcri twas indeterminate. On review, we note that the 
Petitioner referred to a letter from who states that he previously worked for the 
"Sport" channel of the~---~ National TV and Radio Company, and is now employed by the 
Ministry of Physical Education and Sports. He provides a list of programs which were aired which 
included the Petitioner, which includes several airings of weightlifting competitions in which the 
Petitioner participated which are not primarily about the Petitioner. The list also includes a description 
of what appears to be the program evidenced by the transcripts, although he refers to it by a different 
title, and states that it was aired inl 12014. However, unlike the other programs listed, □ 
I I does not indicate that it was aired on the "Sport" channel, or identify on which medium it 
was presented. Also unlike the other programs listed, he does not provide an estimate of the number 
of viewers of this program. Further, a link to a Y ouTube video of the program provided by the 
Petitioner could not be accessed. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the transcripts 
relate to material which was published. 
For all of the reasons noted above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions, but that they 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not indicate why he believes that the Director's original decision 
regarding this criterion was in error, or refer to specific evidence in the record that supports his claim, 
but simply states that evidence of his "original athletic contribution in the field has been provided." 
We note that in his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner first highlights 
two awards he was granted: "The Best Sportsman of 2013" from the I lvouth organization 
at the I ITnstitute of Physical Training, and "The most perspective sportsman of the year" 
from theLJ. However, no evidence or explanation was (or is) provided to show that these awards 
5 
represent original contributions to the sport of weightlifting, or that they were given to the Petitioner 
to recognize contributions that have made a significant impact in the sport. Rather, they are 
acknowledgments of the Petitioner's athletic accomplishments and potential. 
The Petitioner also referred in his RFE response to a letter from the director of the I I specialized 
boarding school of Olympic reserves. After listing some of the Petitioner's athletic accomplishment, 
the director states that "Due to his achievements in sports, the number of children and adolescents who 
have wished to become a notable athletic sportsman in I l and not only in 
I I has made a significant contribution to the development of sport in this country." He 
goes on to list several weightlifters who have competed in international competitions and "who were 
admiring [the Petitioner] and chosen the sports -weightlifting." While the director thus indicates that 
the Petitioner served as an inspiration for these and other athletes, these assertions are not supported 
by evidence directly and exclusively linking the Petitioner's athletic accomplishments to an increase 
in the quantity and quality of weightlifters in I I Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
In support of his claim to qualification under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted evidence of regular 
salary payments he received, as well as bonuses he was awarded for certain achievements. The only 
evidence regarding regular wages received was a statement from the sports club of the Ministry of 
Defense, which lists his salary for the months of February 2017 to January 2018. During those 12 
twelve months he received a total of 13,336,735 I l or an average of 1, 111,3950 per 
month. 
Other evidence includes a similar statement from thee=] which indicates that the Petitioner received 
a single payment of 40,304,000c=]in October 2017 for "salary and other earnings," although there 
is no explanation why this money was received during this month and no others. In addition, the 
record includes evidence that the Petitioner received several one-time bonuses: 
• 5,000,000 D from thel I National Olympic Committee for winning a silver medal 
at the 2013BWorld Cham ionships (undated certificate) 
• 50,000,000 from the National Olympic Committee for "earning a license to 
participate" in the 2016,__ __ ~_~(undated certificate) 
• 5,000,000 from th National Olympic Committee for winning a silver medal 
at the 4 ~-------~ in 2017 (undated certificate) 
• Letter and title confirming that he was awarded a "Youth House" onl 12016 under a 
government order providing housing for "young families actively participating in the 
country's social life" 
• Letter and purchase agreement confirming that he received a car (2013 ~ on 
I I 2013 for his bronze and silver medals earned at the 2013c::]World 
Championships 
In addition, in a reference letter dated May 3, 2019, the vice president ofc::=Jstates that the Petitioner 
is "number two among the highest paid weightlifters I I' and "among the top paid athletes 
6 
in other types of sports inl ~' However, this official does not provide salary figures for the 
Petitioner or other athletes to support his statement, nor does he provide additional information 
regarding the bonuses received by the Petitioner and other athletes. 
The Petitioner also provided a report which indicates that it was prepared by the State Committee of 
I I on Statistics I I, titled "Average monthly nominal accrued wages 
in I I" It indicates for the 2017 calendar year, the average monthly wage for 
all employment categories was 1,453,200 D and in the category of "Art, Entertainment and 
Recreation," 1,367,000c=J. However, we note that the report does not provide wage statistics for 
athletes in general, or for weightlifters specifically. Since the category of "Art, Entertainment and 
Recreation" could include wages for a wide variety ofjobs and industries, this figure does not provide 
an appropriate basis for comparison to the Petitioner's wage and other earnings. 
In addition, the report provides only average salaries, and does not include data for top earners in their 
respective fields. While we acknowledge that the evidence shows that the Petitioner's remuneration, 
including salary and bonuses, exceeded 58 million~ in 2017, the data in the I lreport is 
not sufficient to establish that this sum is significantly high in comparison to that of other weightlifters 
i~ I We therefore find that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
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. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification. 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 his 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 that he is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
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, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7