dismissed EB-1A Case: Wrestling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-N-U-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 22, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wrestler, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
concluding that the Petitioner satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must 
meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter ofS-N-U-
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). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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) 
( discussing 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 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 is a wrestler who has competed in national and international tournaments. Because he 
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). In denying 
the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, lesser 
awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record 
contains evidence that the Petitioner received lesser nationally and internationally recognized awards 
for excellence at wrestling tournaments and championships and participated as a wrestling judge on 
two occasions. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the lesser awards 
and judging criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets three additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
Matter of S-N-U-
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). 
The Petitioner ar� es that he meets this criterion based on membership with thel I I _ I In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership 
in the association is based on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having 
outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 1 
The record reflects that the Petitioner offered letters that repeated the regulatory language without 
demonstrating that membership requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in the field. For example, "[t]he criteria for membership for the beneficiary's 
level of membership in the team, which is full team membership, are demonstration of outstanding 
achievements in the field of Freestyle wrestling as judged by nationally and internationally recognized 
experts in Freestyle wrestling" I �resident qfthe WrestlinP Federation ofl I I "T L and "[t]he criteria for admission to the I .... _ ____ ..... !of the Kyrgyz Republic in 
freestyle wrestling are the presence of outstanding achievements in this sport" and "[the Petitioner] 
was accepted in a I I on the basis of outstanding achievements on an assessment of the 
national and [i]nternational recognized experts in this sport" t ] director o� I
...._ ___________________ __, . Repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avy r Associates, Inc. v.
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Moreover, the Petitioner presented letters from I Kh.ead coach oft � andl I I I (vice president o� l that were strikingly similar. For instance, both letters indicated
that "I reviewed �the Petitt°ner's] track record of achievements in the field of freestyle wrestling,"
"admission to the is granted only to those athletes who have demonstrated a consistent track 
record of outstanding achievements in the sport of wrestling," and "I made a conclusion that [the 
Petitioner's] achievements in the field of freestyle wrestling were indeed outstanding." In fact, besides 
the introductory sentences, the letters contain verbatim language. The nearly identical content calls 
into question whether the letters were prepared by the authors, and therefore diminishes their probative 
value in establishing that the Petitioner qualifies for this criterion. Regardless, the letters do not show 
that membership with I I requires outstanding achievements. 
In addition, the letters reference "[i]n accordance with the by-law." However, the letters do not 
specifically point to where in the bylaws that outstanding achievements are an essential condition for 
membership with I I Further, the record reflects that the Director issued a request for evidence 
and informed the Petitioner that he may submit "[t]he section of the association's constitution or 
1 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 ADll-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
3 
Matter of S-N-U-
bylaws which discuss[ es] the criteria for membership for the beneficiary's level of membership in the 
association" and "[t]he section of the association's constitution or bylaws which discuss[es] the 
qualifications required of the reviewers on the review panel of the association." In response, the record 
does not show that the Petitioner submitted the constitution or bylaws. Without evidence to 
corroborate the claims in the letters, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that membership with! I 
requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he fulfills 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).
The record reflects that the Petitioner presented two newspaper articles, an excerpt from an 
encyclopedia section, and screenshots from eight websites. With the exception of a screenshot from 
insidethegames.biz, the Petitioner did not include the authors of the material. 2 On appeal, the 
Petitioner offers screenshots from bbc.com indicating that "BBC News a1ticles based on original 
reporting carry bylines (the name of the journalist), as often do those authored by journalists who have 
a subject specialism," and "[g]eneral news stories ... do not as a rule cany bylines." Moreover, the 
Petitioner provided screenshots from economist.com stating that "[i]ts articles lack bylines and its 
journalists remain anonymous." In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well 
as the title, date, and "author" of the material. 3 Further, the record does not show that any of his 
evidence was published or posted by the BBC or The Economist. In addition, the inclusion of the 
author is not optional but a regulatory requirement. See 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iii). As the Petitioner's 
evidence does not contain the authors of the material, he did not demonstrate that he meets the 
eligibility requirements for this criterion. 
Further, the record reflects that only one article (Obon) and one screenshot (kabar.kg) show published 
material about him relating to his work.4 In general, the other evidence reveals an article (Top) and 
screenshots (super.kg, wrestling.com, teamusa.org, unitedworldwrestling.org, and 
insidethegames.biz) about wrestling tournaments and championships where the Petitioner is briefly 
mentioned or listed as being one of among numerous competitors rather than published material about 
him. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not fulfill 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 rerrding a show are not about the actor). 5 Similarly, the Petitioner provided screenshots from
I forums.rivals.com and I bportsnow.com relating to a forum on a visit to the 
2 The screenshot from insidethegames.biz reflects an article about the opening daft ofthel !championships,
where the Petitioner is mentioned one time as losing to a wrestler from! ... __ __. rather than published material about him 
relating to his work. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
4 The Petitioner did not include the authors for the article published in Obon and the screenshot posted on kabar.kg. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (finding that the published material should be about the 
petitioner relating to his or her work in the field, not just about his or her employer or another organization with whom he 
or she is associated). 
4 
Matter of S-N-U-
University of1 Is wrestling room and a r eport on thel !Regional Tra ining C enter. 
Although the articl es contain a brief reference to the Petitioner, they are not published materia l about 
him rela ting to his work consistent with this re gula tory criterion. Further, the Petitioner submitted a 
partia l translation of an excerpt from the I I 
I I where t he Petitioner app ears to be listed among o ther athletes. Any document in a fo reign 
la nguag e must be accompa nied by a full English languag e t ranslation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The
translator must c ertify that t he Engl ish languag e translat ion is complete a nd accurate, and tha t the 
translator is competent to transla te from the foreig n languag e into English. Id. Because the Petitioner 
did not provide a p roperly certified and full Engl ish la nguag e tra nslation of the document, we cannot 
meaningfully determine w hether the translated material is accura te a nd shows published material
abou t him. 
I n addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that t he ma terial was published in professional or major
trade publications or other ma·or media. The record conta ins no evidence re flecting the major status 
of Top, ...._'.'""'.'""- ---:-:---- -;::::===::::;-:------:--:-- --- -:-.:=====twrestling.com, teamusa.org, 
unitedworldwrestling.org, I !forums.riva ls.com, and I �portsnow.com. 6 Moreover, 
regard ing insidethegam es.biz, the Petitioner provided screenshots abou t the overall authors rather tha n 
showing that the website is a major medium. 
Further, as it rela tes to Obon, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
I I who stated that the circulation "wa s 65 thousa nd," and the .... n-ew- sp_a_p_e _r _"_cl _o-se_d_d_u_ e_ t_o_p_o_l _it-ic_a .... l 
situations." However, the Petitioner also presents screenshots from pressreference.com rega rding 
Kyrgyzsta n reflecting tha t "[t]h e most popular newspap er is Delo Nomar (50,000)," and references 
"[ t]he high circulation newspap er Moya Stolitsa [25,000]." 7 Although I lndica ted that 
Obon is no longer active, his claimed circula tion figu res a re abov e the highest circula ted newspapers 
provided by pressreference.com. I nconsistencies in the re cord must b e r esolved with independent, 
objective e vidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead to reevalua te the reliab ility a nd sufficiency of 
other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. Likewise, a s it pertains 
to super.kg, the Petitioner presented a l etter froml I who cla imed that "[t]h e
newspaper "Sup er-info" is distributed throughout the territory of the Krygyz Re
t,
ublic, and comes out 
under the circula tion of more than 90 thousand copies." Aga in) Js assertion rega rding 
"Sup er-info's" c irculation figu res ar e si gnificantly high er t ha n the information conta ined in 
pressreference.com. I n fact, pressreference.com mak es no mention of "Sup er-info" as either being a 
newspap er or a h ighly circulat ed newspap er in Kyrgyzstan. Further, the record does not reflect that 
"Sup er-info" published a ny articles about t he Petitioner. Rather, the Petitioner offered screenshots 
posted o n s uper.kg. Here, the content of the letters are n ot s upported by the material from 
pressreference.com and therefore diminishes their p robativ e va lue in establ ishing that Obon a nd 
"Sup er-info" are majo r media. I n addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that super.kg is a major 
medium. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (instructing that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publication or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended audience of the publication). 
7 Although the screenshots from pressreference.com indicate ten pages, the Petitioner provided only the first three pages. 
5 
Matter of S-N-U-
Finally, the Petitioner offers screenshots from SimilarWeb for kabar.kg showing a global ranking of 
329,810, a country ranking of 136, and a category ranking of 18,282. The Petitioner, however, did 
not establish the significance of the rankings or explain how such information reflects status as a major 
medium. While the Petitioner provided comparative statistics for akipress.org, reflecting a global 
ranking of 43,556, a country ranking of 13, and a category ranking of 4,041, the evidence shows that 
akipress.org's popularity is significantly higher than kabar.kg when compared to its rankings and total 
visits (4,102,000 vs. 386,071). Moreover, the screenshots from pressreference.com make no mention 
of kabar.kg as being a major media source in Kyrgyzstan. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, 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 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. 8 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 in the field. The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion "by virtue of winning 
major national and international competitions" and his "achievements, taken in totality, clearly 
establish that [he] is one of the world's top wrestlers and constitute a contribution of major significance 
to the field of freestyle wrestling." Further, the Petitioner indicates that he "possesses the official title 
I I in freestyle wrestling," which is issued "to those 
athletes who have attained an exceptional level of mastery in their particular sport, as evidenced by 
success in major national or international tournaments." 
The Petitioner's achievements in wrestling competitions and tournaments are more relevant to the 
awards category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), a separate and distinct criterion that he has 
already satisfied. Consistent with the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three 
separate criteria, we will generally not consider evidence relating to the awards criterion. Regardless, 
the Petitioner did not establish that his competitive wrestling results were indicative of original athletic 
contributions of major sign ificance in the overall field. 9 Likewise, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
how his 'I I' qualifies as an original contribution of major
significance in the field. He did not show, for example, the substantial impact his title has had in the 
greater field or explain how it is otherwise majorly significant to the wrestling field. 
Moreover, the Petitioner argues that he "has subsequently developed his own uniquely effective style, 
which is based on outstanding physique combined with mastery of challenging fighting techniques" 
and his "activities in the field of freestyle wrestling were recognized as a contribution of major 
significance to the field by champions and leading experts in freestyle wrestling." The record contains 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8 (finding that although work may be "original," this fact 
alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding 
that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
6 
Matter of S-N-U-
recommendation letters praising the Petitioner for his talents without demonstrating how those talents 
have been of major significance in the field. For example,! I former wrestler, stated 
that the Petitioner "is an exceptionally talented athlete who has risen to the very top of his field" and 
"[h ]is accomplishments clearly demonstrate that he has made contributions of major significance to 
the sport ofwrestling." 10 Although! I summarized the Petitioner's career and highlighted 
his achievements, he did not establish how they reflect original contributions of major significance in 
the field. Moreover. I I coach, stated that the Petitioner's "physical abilities as well as his 
technical and athletic mastery of this sport make him truly unique and superb to nearly all other in his 
field." Having a diverse or unique skill set is not a contribution of major significance in-and-of-itself. 
Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has already used those skills and 
abilities to impact the field at a significant level. In the case here, the Petitioner did not establish how 
his physical abilities and athletic mastery is viewed as an original contribution, as well as how it has 
significantly influenced the field. 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining how his ''uniquely 
effective style" and "outstanding physique" are tantamount to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of 
major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 11 On the other hand, 
letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be 
probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 12 Moreover, USCIS need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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, 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 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 
10 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
12 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
7 
Matter ofS-N-U-
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 he 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). 
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. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears 
the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-N-U-, ID# 3181028 (AAO May 22, 2019) 
8