dismissed EB-1A Case: Wrestling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY29,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a freestyle wrestler and coach, seeks classification as an alien 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner had a one-time achievement or met at least three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In addition, the Director found that the 
record did not establish that the Petitioner would continue to work in his field, or that the Petitioner 
would provide a substantial prospective benefit to the U.S. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that he meets seven of the ten 
evidentiary criteria, and that a job offer letter as a wrestling coach shows that he will continue to 
work in his field in the U.S. 
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 extraordinmy 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. 
Maller of D-B-
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 sut1icient 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself~ establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC!S, 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 tina! merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 20 13); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 20 II), a[{'d, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a wrestler and coach. As the Petitioner has not established that he has received a 
major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director held that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of these criteria. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets seven of the criteria, which will be fully analyzed in the 
section below. He also asserts that the job offer letter he submitted establishes that he will continue 
to work in his field in the United States. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not 
established that he satisfies at least three of the evidentiary criteria. 1 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the .field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i). 
1 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he satisfies at least three of the evidentiary criteria, we need not address 
the evidence of his intent to continue to work in his field or his prospective benefit to the United States. 
2 
.
Maller of D-B-
The record establishes that , among othe r awards rece ived as a "junior" or "cad et" wrestler, the 
Petiti oner won first place in the (60 kg) in 20 II, first place in the 
(66 kg) in 201 2, second place in the 
(66 kg) in 2013 , third place in the in 20 15, and second place in the 
in 20 I6. Media article s s ubmit ted with the 
petition indicate that thes e were national-level competitions that, in some cases, influenced selec tion 
for the national wrestling team . We hav e also revie wed the tran slation certifications for 
these awards and find that they meet the requirements at 8 C.F.R . § 1 03.2(b)(3). Accordingly, we 
disagree with the Director and find that the Petitioner has estab lished that he meets this criterion. 
Docum entation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class(fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 8 
C.F .R. § 204.5( h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner has submitted eviden ce of his. membership in the 
. In his reference letter , of the 
states that "[I]t is my knowledge as an ·expert in . this field that this organ ization requires 
outstanding achievement of the coaches who become its members ... " (emphasi s in origi nal). 
However, do es not elaborate on the requir ements for members of the and does not 
explain how he beca me aware of those. requirements. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, 
detai l, or credibil ity, there is a greater need tor a petitioner to submit corroborative evidence . Maller 
l~[ Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (B IA 1998). A document submitt ed in support of this statement , the 
Interna tional Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles "Regulatio ns for the Rec ognition of 
Regional Associations," does not addres s the member ship requir ements for the Additionally, 
the record lacks evide nce demo nstrati ng that recognized experts in the field judge the achi eve ments 
of prospective members of the Therefore, the Petitioner has not met the plain language of this 
requirement. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relaling to the alien's work in the .field for which classifica/ion is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of !he material , and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted several media articles, either copies of newspaper artic les or printed from 
websites. While these articles inclu ded the required certified tran slations, none of the newspaper 
articles included the date of publication or the name · of the newspaper, and severa l others did not 
identi fy the author. The se articles fail to meet the regulatory requirements for evidence submitted 
under this criterion. 
Additionally, the record does not clearly establish the source of the internet articles submitted, many 
of which appear to be have been obtain ed fro m third-p arty locations, such as Internet forums, rather 
than the original creato rs. The record lacks evid~nce regarding the circulation or intended readership 
3 
.
Malter (~!D-B -
of the unknown public ations, despite the Director 's specific request for that intormation. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided no new data on this issue on appeal. Without such ev idence , 
the record does not support a finding th at the mat erial was publi shed in profession al or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Finally, all of the article s provide coverage of wrestling tournam ents in which the Peti tioner 
participated. Many only list his name and placing in the particular tourname nt, while others 
tangentially discuss notew orthy matches and competitors , including the Petitioner. None of these 
artic les can be said to be a bout the Petitioner, as they are about the tourname nt results o f seve ral 
wrestlers and , in some cases, the prospect s for the Georgian wrestlin g team as a w hole . See Noroozi 
v. Napoli!ano, 905 F. Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (concurrin g with USC IS's determination 
that articles about a team that only briefly mention ed a petiti oner did not satisfy this criterion). 
Accordingly, the submitt ed ev idence does not meet the requirem ents of this criterion. 
Evidenc e of the alien 's particip ation, either individually or on a panel , as a judge (?l 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of 5pecificafion for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R . § 2 04.5(h)(3 )(iv). 
The Petitioner has submitted an identification card issued by which 
indicates that he is an International Referee . On appeal, the Peti tioner again refers to 
lette r, in which he states that the Petiti oner has been a referee for the and in turn refers to a 
Jetter from President of the dated October 1 7, 2016. However , 
letter m akes no mention of the Petition er having serve d as a referee, and does not 
support this claim. Furth ermo re, the reco rd lacks evidence describ ing how the dutie s of a referee 
would qualif y under this cri terio n. 
In addition , the Petitioner points to a certificate he received after comp leting a o ne- wee k 
und er the auspices of 
The Petitioner does not elab orate on why earning thi s certificate establishe s 
his eligibili ty under this regu latio n. Based upon all of these issues, we find that the Petitioner has 
not met the requirement s of this criterion . 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly . artisti c, athletic .. or business­
related contributi ons of major sign[ficance in the field 8 C.F .R. § 204.5( h)(3)(v) 
On appeal , the Petitioner refer s to an undate d letter signed by owner of 
indicates that the Petitioner work s as a voluntee r coac h 
to children at his wrestling club , and employs a uniqu e coachin g technique based upon a Georgian 
wrestling style known as chidoaba . Howeve r, this evidence does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has made an origi nal contributi on to the tield of wrestling by using a coac hing technique 
that is based upon a well-established style of Georgian wrestli ng. More importan tly, the reco rd lacks 
evid ence to support a finding that this contribution is one of majo r significa nce, since there is no 
4 
.
Malter of D-B-
indication that this coaching technique has had an impact beyond the studen ts coached by the 
Petitioner.. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Evidence ll the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
The Petitioner, in his appeal brief, refer s generally to the letters submi tted by his fellow wrestlers, 
coaches, and other wrestling experts to support his claim under this crite rion. Neither the brief nor 
the letters demonstrate that the Petitioner 's wrestling matches are artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirem ents of this crite rion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role fhr organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
A leading role should be apparen t b y its position in the overall organizational hiera rchy and through 
the role's matching dutie s. A critical role should be apparent from the Petitioner's impact on the 
organiza tion or the establishment's activities. The Petitioner's performance in this role should 
establ ish whether the role was critical for the o rganizatio n or estab lishment as a who le. 
On appeal, the Petitioner bases his claim to this criterion upon his role as a coach and referee for the 
As explained above, while the evidence confirms the Petitioner's qualification as a referee, 
the record does not demonstrate that he has performed as a referee for the Nor does it expla in 
how his refer ee work would have constituted a lead ing or critical role for the organizatio n. 
Furthermo re, the Petitioner has not established that he served as a coach for the in an official 
capacity. An undated letter from the organization's president, does not identify the 
Petitioner's job title or dates of emplo yment, but states that he "is very devoted to his job, " "made a 
great contribution in the development of our childr en," and it identifies twelve children trained by 
him who "achi eved the certain success." The letter does not provide specific information about his 
role or the impact his work had for the organiza tion . 
In addi tion, severa l letters initially submi tted with the pet1t10n describe the Petitioner's role 
differently. who describes hims elf as the "youth team coach of Georgia," states 
that the Petitioner served as a consultant, but also does not provide details as to his duties or the 
period he served in this role. states that the Petitioner was his "coach and 
sparring partner " during training for the 20 15 While the evidence suggests 
that the Petitioner played some role for the it does not establish the exact natu re of that role or 
the· impact that it had on the organizati on. The Petiti oner must resolve this ambigui ty in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Maller of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-92 (B IA 1988). Here, he has not done so. Nor has he submitted evidence to estab lish that 
the has a distingui shed reputation. Therefore, the record not support a finding that the 
Petitioner's role was either leading or critical. 
5 
Matter of D-B-
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence that he received a major, 
internationally recognized award or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, 
we need not provide the type of tina! 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 level of expertise required tor the 
classification sought. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies tor 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller of D-B-, ID# 940124 (AAO May 29, 2018) 
6