dismissed EB-1A Case: Wrestling

MATTER OF M-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 18, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wrestler, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim. and whose achievements 
have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial·evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers a brief, contending that he received major awards and meets at least 
three criteria of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo 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 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 
Matter of M-A-
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 iiems 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 it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary'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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
IL ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a wrestler who has competed in national and international tournaments. On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains that he won major, internationally recognized awards ·under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and that he also satisfies five 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 one of 
the initial evidentiary criteria, lesser awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The record contains 
evidence that the Petitioner received lesser nationally and internationally recognized awards for· 
excellence at wrestling tournaments and championships. Accordingly, we agree with the Director· 
that the Petitioner met the lesser awards criterion. We have, however, reviewed all of the evidence 
in t_he record and conclude that.ft does not support a finding that the Petitioner has received one-time 
achievements or fulfills the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. One-Time Achievement 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one­
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally re~ognized awards. 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. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major, 
2 
.
Matter of M-A-
international recogmt10n may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic 
Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel 
Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless 
of the nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large 
cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by 
Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the field as one of 
the top awards. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that his medals at the 
finishes at the 
and third place 
constitute one-time achievements. 
"are clearly 'global in scope' and 
which encompasses the sport's major governing 
and 
Specifically, he contends that the 
sanctioned by the 
bodies 
Moreover, the Petitioner claims that "winning a continental 
championship is undoubtedly a 'top award,"' and "[a] similar analysis can be applied to [his] third 
place finishes in the which, again, were 'global in scope' 
and at which he received 'one of the top awards."' 
Here, the Petitioner did not substantiate his arguments with independent evidence. Specifically, the 
Petitioner did not show that the and 
are "global in scope," and that winning a continental championship or finishing third 
at the is "one of the top awards." Moreover, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires the one-time achievement to be "a major, 
international[ly] recognized award." He did not present evidence, for example, establishing that the 
competitions or awards are widely reported by international media, are recognized by the general 
public, or gamer attention comparable to other major, globally recognized awards such as Olympic 
medal winners. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the requirements of a 
one-time achievement. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
. 
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 contends for the first time on appeal that he satisfies this criterion based on his 
membership with "Ukrainian national wrestling team for several years, at which he has represented 
his country as its best wrestler in his weight class at numerous international competitions." The 
Petitioner references recommendation letters from personal 
coach for the Petitioner, and head coach of the 
as well as a screenshot from wrestling.com. In order to meet this criterion, the 
3 
.
Matter of M-A-
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 
Although and praise the Petitioner for his wrestling experience and 
state that he "has been the best wrestler in the Ukraine in his weight category" and ';[f]or a period of 
six years he was [in] first place at all the championships while he had the strongest athletes in his 
weight class in Ukraine," they do not indicate that outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts, are required for membership with the Ukrainian 
national wrestling team. Similarly, while the screenshot reflects an interview with an unidentified 
coach, it mentions that the Petitioner finished in third place at a Polish wrestling tournament without 
showing the membership requirements· for the Ukrainian national wrestling team. Here, the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence documenting that the Ukrainian national team requires 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts consistent with 
the regulation at C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show 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). 
The Petitioner claims that he "submitted l 0 different articles," which qualify under this criterion. 
The record, however, does not reflect that he provided published material about him in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media, which included the title, date, and author.2 With 
the exception of two articles and two screenshots, the remaining six screenshots from various 
websites, such as wrestlinglua.com, profc.com, and freewrestling.ru, reflect coverage of wrestling 
tournaments where the Petitioner is simply mentioned or listed as a competitor. These screenshots 
are about wrestling tournaments rather than about the Petitioner. Articles that are not about a 
petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJ at *I, *7 (0. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are 
not about the actor). We also note that none of ~hese six screenshots includes the "author of the 
material," as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Petitioner provided two articles from Touche (Tushe) and 
screenshots from two websites, glavred.info and ukrwrestling.com, reflecting published material 
about him. However, only one article from Touche includes the author, as required by the 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-/40 
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 See also USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
4 
.
Matter of M-A-
regulation.3 Moreover, regarding Touche, the record contains a 2010 screenshot from 
fightzone.in.ua indicating that the magazine was "released in a circulation of 1,000 copies." The 
Petitioner, however, did not establish that such circulation statistics are representative of a major 
medium. As it relates to glavredinfo.com, the Petitioner offered screenshots from similarweb.com 
and stats.webmaster.net reflecting that the website is globally ranked at 60,628 and 59, I I 5, 
respectively. Again, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such Internet viewing statistics reflect 
status as a major medium.4 We note that the Petitioner did not present evidence of ukrwrestling.com 
as a major medium. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden m demonstrating that he meets the 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others i~ the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv); 
The record contains a "Certificate" from president of the 
reflecting that the Petitioner "has been a Referee" at five wrestling 
competitions. In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner provided another letter from 
who claimeq that "the concepts of the referee and the judge have the same meaning" 
(emphasis in original). Further, the Petitioner submitted his credential as a "National Category 
Judge." 
This regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show that he has acted as the judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specialization. 5 letter does not describe the 
duties of a wrestling referee/judge to demonstrate whether they involve evaluating or judging the 
work or skills of competitors as opposed to enforcing the rules of a match and ensuring 
sportsmanlike competition. Moreover, the record lacks other evidence, such as official competition 
rules for referees, bylaws of the relating to judges, or the duties and responsibilities of 
credential holders, showing that serving as a "referee" in this instance equates to participating as a 
"judge" of the work of others. Without further documentation, evidence regarding officiating at a 
match is insufficient to meet this criterion. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he 
satisfies this criterion. 
3 Id. 
4 We note that the Petitioner submitted screenshots from similarweb.com regarding the other websites that do not reflect 
published material about him and do not contain the author, and the Petitioner did not establish that the Internet viewing 
statistics for the websites reflect major media. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
s 
.
Malter of M-A-
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
eslablishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that "he has been described by his national team coaches as the Ukraine's 
best wrestler of the past decade." Moreover, he argues that he "was the sole representative of the 
team in his weight category in international competitions evidencing his critical and leading role for 
the team in being the sole representative in this capacity." If a leading role, then evidence must 
establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to 
establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 6 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must 
demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the 
outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but 
rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 7 
The Petitioner references the recommendation letters from and and the 
screenshot from wrestling.com discussed under the membership criterion. Further, he submitted 
screenshots from ukrwrestling.com reflecting the composition of the Ukrainian national team at the 
and Moreover, the Petitioner claims that the two articles from Touche "on 
the premiere release of the magazine evidence his leading role on the team." Although the 
documentation shows his membership with the Ukrainian national team, it does not demonstrate that 
he performed in a leading or critical role. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that his role 
differentiated from the other wrestlers on the team. In addition, the magazine articles make no 
mention of his role on the national team or otherwise indicate that his role was leading or critical to 
the overall team. While the Petitioner won wrestling matches, he did not demonstrate that he 
contributed in an important way to the team's overall success or standing. 
We note that the Petitioner also provided a screenshot from profc.com for the 2015 
m Nevada and asserts that he "was the single representative from the 
team." The screenshot, however, does not support his assertion as it lists other 
Ukrainian wrestlers competing at the championships. Regardless, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that competing at a single event establishes a leading or critical role to the national team as a whole. 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the organization or establishment to 
have a distinguished reputation.8 The Petitioner argues that he provided screenshots from the United 
World Wrestling database "which showed that the Ukrainian wrestling team was the top ranked team 
internationally in freestyling." However, the submitted screenshots rank individual wrestlers 
without any mention of the Ukrainian national team's overall ranking. In addition, the Petitioner 
references another screenshot from wrestling.com in which the Ukrainian national team's coach, 
stated that in the 2013 the team finished third. 
Although screenshot shows that the national team received some success at the 2013 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
7 Id. 
8 / d. at 1 0-11. 
6 
Matter of M-A-
Championships, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Ukrainian national team has a distinguished 
reputation within the field. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets 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, 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. at 954. Here, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the significance of his athletic accomplishments 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. l O 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
I 
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 foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-A-, ID# 1561631 (AAO Sept. 18, 2018) 
7