dismissed EB-1A Case: Wrestling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7868093 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 10, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a Greco-Roman wrestler and wrestling coach, seeks classification as an individual 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 Petitioner did not 
satisfy any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which he must meet at least 
three. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is coming to the 
United States to continue work in his area of expertise, or that his entry would substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the previously submitted evidence demonstrates that he meets 
four of the ten initial evidentiary criteria and that he is otherwise qualified for the benefit sought. 
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)(l) 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 Greco-Roman wrestler and coach who has competed primarily in his native country 
ofl I He has a bachelor's degree in sport (wrestling) from thel I Institute of 
Physical Culture. 
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 submitted evidence relating to 
four criteria, including lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, membership 
in organizations that require outstanding achievements, published materials, and original athletic 
contributions of major significance. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet 
any of these criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets all four criteria, discussed separately below. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that he meets 
at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the individual'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 plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the Petitioner's 
awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish 
every element of this criterion. 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 
2 
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. 1 
The Petitioner provided copies of the following certificates as evidence of his awards in athletic 
competitions: 2 
• Two 1st place Diplomas ~ weight category) awarded at "Championship II of 
Ministry of Defense of the Republic of I I on Greco-Roman Wrestling" t===:J 
2014 and 2015) 
• 3rd de ree Diploma recognizing the Petitioner as "the ~rize-winner of the championship of 
L-------1~~~,co-Roman wrestling," awarded by the I I Ministry of Culture and 
Tourism , 2011). 
• 1st place Diploma .,__---='weight category) awarded by'! t" at the "International 
Freestyle Wrestling Tournament dedicated to the Day ofRemembrance'~l999). 
• 2nd category Diploma for 2nd place at the "open championship of the on Freestyle 
Wrestling among schoolchildren" I !weight category) awarded by th Physical 
Education and Sport Committee (no date). 
• 3rd category diploma for 76th place in "the international tournament on Greco-Roman 
wrestling among juniors born in 1982-83," awarded by the Committee for Physical Education 
and Sports o~ 1(2000). 
The Petitioner also provided certificates that did not appear to qualify as "prizes or awards" as they 
did not indicate his placement in athletic competitions. For example, the record reflects that he 
received a certificate "in recognition and appreciation" for his contribution to the success of the Asian 
Junior Wrestling Championship in 2014, and a certificate of participation in the Cadet Asian 
Championships in 2013. The remaining certificates included a diploma for participation in an 
international Greco-Roman tournament sponsored by the "Central Council of the I I 
Volunteer Sports Society oti I' which does not clearly indicate that he placed in his weight 
category, and a certificate for a first place finish in a boxing event, which is not in his claimed area of 
extraordinary ability. 
The Director requested additional evidence to establish that the submitted certificates demonstrate the 
Petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationall reco nized awards for excellence in his field. In 
response, the Petitioner submitted a letter from President of thel I Wrestling 
Association. I I identifies the,__ __ ___, Championship andl I Cup as major 
athletic competitions in wrestling that are held only once per calendar year. He farther notes that 
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 ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 At the time of filing. the Petitioner provided an index which listed the Beneficiary's awards and other diplomas and 
corresponded to the ten ceitificates that accompanied it. On appeal, counsel's brief includes a list of 13 first, second, and 
third place finishes which includes several awards that did not appear on the original list, and for which no supporting 
evidence has been provided. For example, the new list indicates that the Beneficiary achieved first and second place 
finishes at ·I I Championships" in 1999, 2000, and 2003, awards which were not mentioned previously. 
Assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 l&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements must be substantiated in the record with 
independent evidence. 
3 
wrestling competitions i~ I are divided into five different ranks and levels, depending on their 
"scale and sporting siisificance" as determined by the I I Ministry of Physical Culture and 
Sports. I s letter goes into considerable detail regarding the different levels of competition 
and discusses at length what is required to earn a "Master of Sport" title in wrestling inl I a 
title the Petitioner does not claim to possess. I I does not, however, address the specific 
competitions in which the Beneficiary received award certificates, the competition rank or level assigned 
to those competitions, or the national or international recognition afforded to those awards. 
We acknowledge that one of the Beneficiary's certificates mentions that he received a "3rd degree 
diploma" as "the prize-winner of the championship ofl I on Greco-Roman wrestling" in 
2011. However, according to the certificate, the award was given by the "Ministry of Culture and 
Tourism." I I indicates that an organization or a ency or with a different name, the 
"Ministry of Physical Culture and Sports," overns the Championship that is regarded as 
the sport's top athletic competition within~---~ Because of this difference in the sponsoring 
organizations' names, we cannot determine if the Beneficiary's certificate indicates his receipt of an 
award at the officially sanctioned national championship in his sport. 
Another letter from thel I Wrestling Association indicates that the Petitioner received a 
bronze medal at the "championship ofl I" in 2011, and lists other medals won by 
the Petitioner which appear to correspond to the submitted certificates, but it does not offer any further 
commentary on the national or international recognition of these awards. Further, we note that the 
Petitioner did not provide photographs of any medals received in competition, despite the Director's 
request for this evidence, nor does the record contain other supporting evidence, such as official event 
results recorded or published by the sport's national federation. 
In support of this criterion the Petitioner also provided evidence that thel I Wrestling 
Association is recognized as] Is national federation by United World Wrestling (UWW), as 
well as copies of the UWW's constitution and published "International Wrestling Rules." However, 
the Petitioner did not explain how this documentation supports its claim that the Beneficiary received 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. The submitted evidence does 
not indicate that the competitions in which he received certificates were sponsored by the national 
federation or the UWW, nor does it include information regarding the level of recognition associated 
with the award certificates. 
The Petitioner also submitted an evidentiary exhibit which is claimed to contain "background 
information regarding previous winners." The Petitioner included biographies and competition results 
for four wrestlers from I I but did not elaborate on his reference to them as "previous 
winners." For example, the evidence did not show that these athletes had competed in the same 
competitions in which the Petitioner himself had won awards. Rather, the evidence reflects that they 
competed and medaled in events such as the European Championship, Asian Games, World 
Championships and Olympic Games. Even if they also received medals in the same events as the 
Petitioner, the fact that they went on to achieve success in major international competition does not 
support a claim that the Petitioner himself received nationally or internationally recognized awards. 
Despite the Petitioner's claims on appeal that he submitted "all reasonably available evidence" 
pertaining to his awards, most of the evidence provided does not relate to the specific certificates he 
4 
won or demonstrate their national or international recognition in the field of wrestling. The documentary 
evidence as a whole does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's certificates were nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner provided testimonial evidence from two wrestlers who indicate that they have 
won nationally and internationally recognized awards and attribute their success to the Petitioner's 
coaching. In addition, a letter from a representative ofthd._ ___ ___,lwrestling Association mentions 
some of the awards and prizes received by athletes claimed to be coached by the Petitioner. However, 
in order to satisfy the plain language of the regulation, the Petitioner must establish that he himself 
was the recipient of nationally or internationally recognized awards; awards received by his students 
do not satisfy this criterion. 
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual'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 asserts that he "has been a member of prestigious associations which clearly require 
outstandin
1 
achievements of their members," and contends that "USCIS erred in not finding that 
I National Wrestling Team requires of its members outstanding achievements in the field of 
wrestling and/or that the Team does not qualify as an organization." 
However, the Petitioner did not provide evidence that he was a member of the I !national 
wrestling team. The evidenpe submitted in support of this criterion consisted of a letter fromD 
I I Vice President of thd_ I Wrestling Association. As noted in the Director's decision, 
this letter identifies the Beneficiarr s dates of emplorVent as a coach for two different organizations, 
including the sports association ._ _______ _.f l I notes that "Sports Association 
l I' for Greco-Roman wrestling is a member of sports wrestling in I I' and states 
that "the members of the society won medals and cups at republic, international competitions." The 
letter lists the names of athletes who trained at I I and their achievements I I 
states the achievements of these athletes "confirm the outstanding reputation of the Sports Association 
I f as sports organization." 
This evidence, which makes no mention ofthel !national wrestling team or the Beneficiary's 
membership on that team, does not support the Petitioner's claims that he qualifies based on his 
membership on a national team in his sport. Further, the record does not establish that his employment 
as a coach at a sports club that trained successful competitive wrestlers constitutes "membership in an 
association" that requires outstanding achievements as judged by national or international experts in 
the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the individual 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). 
5 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of one article titled '------------~--~-----' 
which was published in the newspaper Enlightenment on.___~ 2019, more '---------~ than ten months after he filed this petition. 
Under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1), the Petitioner must establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time 
of filing. While articles published at a later date may be considered in a final merits determination as 
evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, we will consider only articles that were published 
before the date of filing to establish eligibility under this criterion. A petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). 
As the Petitioner did not submit evidence of any published material about him and relating to his work 
in the field that pre-dated the filing of the petition, he has not met this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, 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 meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that he has made original contributions of 
major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that his contributions have been 
widely implemented in the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise 
risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he "has made an original athletic contribution of major significance 
to his field of endeavor by virtue of winning major national and international competitions." He 
maintains that he provided "extensive expert testimonials confirming that his accomplishments in his 
athletic field constitute a contribution of major significance to the sport of Wrestling." The Petitioner 
asserts that the Director did not give appropriate weight to "credible expert testimony." 
The Petitioner submitted three letters in support of this criterion, all of which address his contributions 
as a coach. One of these letters is authored by two Greco-Roman coaches associated with the 
I !Wrestling Association. The coaches mention the Petitioner's coaching position for the 
sports association I I and note that he "showed himself a competent coach and an 
experienced mentor." They also praise the Petitioner's "high organizational skills," his ability to 
"skillfully prepare[] athletes for competitions," and note that he "constantly studies and introduces 
innovations of modem sports development." 
The other two letters are froml I national team members I I 
who indicate that the Petitioner coached and trained them . ._I ______ _.I states that the Petitioner 
helped him prepare for major competitions and states that the Petitioner "has impressed many people 
with his experience, sports potential and excellent knowledge of sports" and "is well-trained in the 
sphere of sport legislation." '--------~ states that the Petitioner is known for his "high 
technical and tactical knowledge in the area of wrestling" and that he has worked with many athletes 
who competed at the highest international levels. He further states that the Petitioner's "training 
method and his achievements as a Greco-Roman wrestling coach represent a significant contribution 
to the field of Greco-Roman wrestling." 
6 
The letters submitted primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's skill as a coach without 
providing specific examples of original contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. They do not, for example, describe the "innovations" he brings to his training methods 
or techniques in support of a claim that he has made an original contribution, nor do the letters explain 
how his training methods or techniques have had an impact in his sport beyond the individual athletes 
with whom he has worked. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of 
major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 3 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. 4 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
While the letters indicate that the Petitioner has coached competitive wrestlers who competed in 
international athletic events at a high level, he has not shown how these activities equate to "original" 
athletic contributions of major significance in the field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the contributions must be not only original but of major significance. The testimonial 
evidence indicates that the Petitioner is a skilled athlete and coach whose students have achieved some 
notable success in their careers. Although the Petitioner has earned favorable recognition from the 
authors of the submitted letters, the evidence submitted does not demonstrate that his impact on the 
sport is commensurate with an original athletic contribution of major significance in the field. 
Accordingly, this criterion has not been met. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issues 
As explained above, the submitted evidence does not satisfy any of the initial evidentiary criteria. As 
the Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documented that he meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
the Director's separate determinations that the Petitioner did not establish that he is coming to 
"continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" and this his entry would "substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States" under section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
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 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra at 8-9. 
4 Id. at 9. 
7 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, and conclude 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 
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 )(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. 
8