dismissed EB-1A Case: Wrestling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8285335 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a competitive wrestler , 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 matter is now before us on appeal. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . The Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de novo. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 
I&NDec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review , we agree with the Director 's determination 
that the Petitioner did not meet at least three criteria . Accordingly, 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 record shows that the Petitioner is a competitive athlete inl !wrestling who has 
competed at the junior and senior levels in regional, national, and international competitions since 
2008, Inc=]the Petitioner was awarded the title "Master of Sport Of Uzbekistan" from the State 
Committee of Physical Education and Sport. The Petitioner indicates that he studied at the Uzbekistan 
State Institute of Physical Education from I I 
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 Petitioner claims that he meets five of the ten criteria at 8 
C.F.R.(h)(3)(i)-(x), summarized below: 
• (i) Nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes; 
• (ii) Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii) Published materials; 
• (v) Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (viii) Leading or critical roles for organizations or establishments. 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of these criteria. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy all claimed criteria and to 
establish his eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. After 
reviewing all the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he meets 
at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. 
A. Evidentiary 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) 
2 
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. 1 The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted evidence that 
he was the recipient of "numerous awards and high-ranking finishes" but determined that there was 
insufficient evidence to establish that his awards are nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in his field. 
While we agree that the Petitioner did not establish the significance of all of the submitted awards, 
particularly certain "international tournaments," the record establishes that he received silver and 
bronze medals at the Championship of Uzbekistan in thl years 
1 
_______ ~ and that he was 
twice the national champion in his weight class at the level. The record reflects that the 
Championship of Uzbekistan is sanctioned by the national federation for wrestling and the Uzbekistan 
Ministry of Physical Culture and Sports, and therefore is recognized as the official national 
championship in the sport in the Petitioner's country. Accordingly, we find that this criterion has been 
met. 
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 meets this criterion based upon his selection as a member of the Uzbekistan 
National Wrestling Team, and contends that "USCIS erred in not finding that Uzbekistan National 
Wrestling Team requires of its members outstanding achievements in the field of wrestling as judged 
by nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field of wrestling and/or that the Team does 
not qualify as an organization as INA does not define an organization in this context." 
The Petitioner submitted two letters from~---------------===! of the Uzbekistan 
Wrestling Federation, confirming the Petitioner's membership on the team sine~ He states that 
admission to the national team requires "a consistent track record of outstanding achievements in this 
sport" and that "[the Petitioner] was admitted to the team on the basis of his outstanding achievements in 
I I wrestling as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in this sport." 
Specifically, he stated that the Petitioner, at the time of admission, "has been a champion of the Republic 
of Uzbekistan in wrestling and multiple times winner of the national and international wrestling 
tournaments." 
I I further indicates that the Petitioner's admission to membership was recommended by 
I I an Olympic bronze medalist i~andl l who has multiple 
World Wrestling Championship medals. In addition, f states that the national team "only 
selects the best of the best and is highly selective" and names other past members of the team who have 
gone on to win medals in international events. 
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. 
3 
The Petitioner provided letters froml I and I ~ho state that inD they 
reviewed the Petitioner's "track record of achievements in the field of wrestling and recommended his 
admission" to the national team based upon his having been "a champion of the Republic of Uzbekistan 
in wrestling and multiple times winner of the national and international wrestling tournaments." They 
assert that based on their recommendations "[the Petitioner's] admission to the Uzbekistan National 
Wrestling Team clearly demonstrates membership in the organization that requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field of 
wrestling." 
In comparing the letters from I I and~------~ they contain large portions of 
identical or virtually identical language consistent with a common source. If testimonial material lacks 
specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the Petitioner to furnish corroborative items. 
Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). In addition, these letters, as well as the two letters from 
I I simply repeated the regulatory language of this criterion without providing details 
regarding how selection for the national team is actually made or what criteria must be met. Repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Cf F edin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Further, the Petitioner relies solely on the above-referenced letters, which are not sufficiently specific 
with respect to the national team membership requirements or selection processes. As noted by the 
Director, the record does not contain corroborating evidence, such as official rules or procedures 
published by the national federation of the sport. 
The Petitioner must show that he meets every element of a given criterion. Here, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the procedures or criteria used for his selection to the national team. Therefore, 
he did not establish that he satisfies 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 class[fication 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 general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. 2 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted an article titled 1...,,--------,-,........,....,.....----,r:-:-'.'t published by 
German online sports portal Sport aus Mainz (www.sportausmainz.de) inj f 2017. The article 
is about the results of the! I World Cham12ionships held in Poland, and primarily 
focuses on the individual match results of Lithuanian athlete! I who won a bronze 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 7 (instrncting 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). 
4 
medal at the event. The article mentions that a Kyrgyz wrestler who lost in the semi-final round and 
"entered the competition with victories over Uzbek [the Petitioner] (8:0) and a Finn ... " This article, 
which only mentions the Petitioner's early round defeat in passing, is not about the Petitioner and 
therefore does not satisfy the plain language of this criterion. Further, the article was not accompanied 
by evidence that Sport aus Mainz qualifies as a professional publication, major trade publication or 
other major media. 
The Petitioner also submitted an online article titled .__ _______________ __. 
publisrd bt News.az (www.news.az) inl 12011. The article provides the results of the first day 
of the Cup event, noting that Azerbaijan's youngl I wrestlers won five gold, five 
silver and seven bronze medals and athletes from Kazakhstan and Georgia won two gold medals each. 
In addition, the article lists the medal results in each weight category and identifies the Petitioner as a 
bronze medalist in theO event. Although the Petitioner's name is mentioned, the article is about 
the overall results of the D Cup and highlights the performance of the Azerbaijani team; it is not 
about the Petitioner. 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). In addition, the Petitioner did not submit 
evidence to establish that the online publication in which the article appeared is a major trade 
publication or other major media. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted an article titled .__....,,....___,,,,_....,,.... _________ __.' which was 
published as part of l O !' osted to the website of the Embassy of the Republic 
of Uzbekistan to the United Kingdom in 2011. The article is about the performance of 16 and 
17-year-old Uzbek wrestlers at the Youth Wrestling Championship and mentions the 
Petitioner's bronze medal in the .___~weight class. The article does not identify the author of the 
material as required by the regulation and is not accompanied by evidence that an Embassy's 
"information digest" qualifies as major media. 
Later, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted an article titled 
published by Sports of Bukhara onl j2ol9. In addition, he sub~m_i_tt-ed~---~2-0_1_8-art_1 __ c~le 
titled 'I @_nd an LJ2019 article titled' 
I ]' both published in Uzbekistan m.__o-nt....,.h....,.ly-s-po_rt_s _m_a_g_a_z1,...._n_e_P___,h,....J-.s-ic--a--:!l 
Culture and Sports. 
The Director acknowledged that these articles are about the Petitioner and his act1v1t1es as a 
competitive wrestler; however, he noted that all three articles were published subsequent to the filing 
of this petition in July 2018. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). 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, 17 5 (Comm'r 1998). 
That decision, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), further provides that USCIS 
cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. As 
the published materials submitted in response to the RFE cannot establish the Petitioner's eligibility 
as of the date of filing, we need not evaluate whether they otherwise satisfy the plain language of the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
5 
Nevertheless, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not provided sufficient 
evidence to establish that Sports of Bukhara or Physical Culture and Sports qualify as major trade 
media or other major media. The Petitioner provided letters from the editors of these publications 
attesting to their respective circulation and online readership. USCIS need not rely solely on self­
serving assertions. 3 Even if we were to accept the editors' information there is no evidence showing 
the distribution of these publications relative to other Uzbekistani media to demonstrate that the 
submitted articles from late 2018 and 2019 were published in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he submitted evidence from "major sport-related newspapers 
in his country of origin and beyond" and contends that the Director provided "no valid basis for the 
rejection of credible, clear and convincing evidence." However, as noted, the Director clearly 
explained in both the RFE and the decision why the evidence was insufficient to establish that the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. For the reasons discussed, we agree with the Director's determination. 
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. 4 For example, a petitioner may show that his 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 that his 
"accomplishments in his athletic field constitute a contribution of major significance to the sport of 
Wrestling." He argues that the Director did not give appropriate weight to the submitted expert 
testimonials. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner initially! proviled a letter from professional wrestler I I I I who, as an amateur competed at the an<lLJummer Olympics, as well as World 
and Asian Championships as a member of the Uzbekistan national team. I I affirms 
that the Petitioner became a member of the national team in~ and provides a "summary list" of 
the Petitioner's results in "major national and international'1 I wrestling tournaments 
between~andc::] He also states that he received the Petitioner received the Master of Sports 
of Uzbekistan title "for achieving outstanding accomplishments in the field of I I 
wrestling," noting that the title is granted only 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 
3 See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) affd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that 
the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
4 See USCTS 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). 
6 
already satisfied. Consistent with the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three 
separate criteria, we will generally not consider here 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 significance in the overall field. 5 Likewise, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate how his "Master of Sport" title qualifies as an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. He did not show, for example, that it was awarded based on a determination 
that his contributions to the sport had made a significant impact on the field. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted three additional letters. One letter is attributed to 
I I head coach ofi !wrestling for USA Wrestling, the governing body of the 
sport in the United States. However, the letter reflects that ~----~did not personally sign 
statement as someone signed "forl I' on the signature line. This letter, and two additional 
letters (from USA Wrestling assistant national! I coach,I p, and I I 
University assistant wrestling coac~~---------~~' summarize the Petitioner's career 
and highlight his achievements, they did not establish how they reflect original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
The letter attributed tol l states that the Petitioner's "decided unique approach to wrestling, 
as well as his outstanding accomplishments in this sport definitely constitute an athletic contribution 
of major significance to this field," and later notes that his "athletic achievements represent a 
significant contribution to the field of I I wrestling due to his relentless work ethic and 
unique style." However, having a unique style 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 "unique style" are viewed as an original contribution, as well 
as how they have significantly influenced the field. 
We note that large portions of the letters frortj I and~------~ are identical in 
content. Their letters address the Petitioner's "Master of Sport" title and state that it is awarded 
"exclusively to those athletes who have made a contribution of major significance to their sport as 
judged by nationally recognized experts in the field." However, this statement is not supported by 
evidence from the issuing organization documenting the criteria for awarding a Master of Sport title 
in I I wrestling in Uzbekistan. 6 Both these letters also state that the Petitioner's 
"accomplishments clearly demonstrate that he has made a contribution of major significance to the 
sport of wrestling." They also refer to his is receipt of "major internationally recognized awards" at 
World Championships, which the Petitioner has neither claimed nor documented. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, 8-9; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 
2013) (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 The Petitioner submitted a printout from The Free Dictionary, that discusses the history of the "Master of Sport" title in 
the USSR. The Petitioner's Master of Sport title was bestowed on him by the State Committee of Physical Education and 
Sport of the Republic of Uzbekistan and is not accompanied by evidence from that body explaining the criteria or 
achievements required to earn the title. 
7 
The letters submitted primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in his sport without 
providing specific examples of original contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 7 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. 8 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
While the Petitioner has competed in competitions and tournaments at the national and international 
level and participated in extensive! I wrestling training, he has not shown how these 
activities equate to "original" athletic contributions of major significance in the field. The Petitioner 
has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In a statement submitted with his initial submission, the Petitioner asserts that he has played a leading 
and critical role in the Uzbekistan National Wrestling Team sinceO but he does not specify what that 
role was or indicate that he was submitting evidence in support of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In his letter dated July 20, 2018,I I stated that the Petitioner had bee1~(layilg a "leading 
and critical role in the Uzbekistan National Wrestling Team as the team leader" sine In response 
to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a new letter from I l dated May 3, 2019, indicating 
that the Petitioner served as the captain of the Uzbekistan National Wrestling Team frotti I 
We note that the claimed dates of the Petitioner's leadership position and the title of his claimed role both 
changed from the date of filing, and neither the Petitioner nor I I addressed these 
inconsistencies. Based on the conflicting statements provided byl ( we find that his letter 
alone is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner held the team I I role for his national team. We 
also observe that neither! I and I I who wrote their letters as 
representatives of the Uzbekistan National Team and Wrestling Association of Uzbekistan, indicate that 
the Petitioner served as a team leader or captain on their team. 
In his second letter,I I notes that the "function of the team captain position is leadership 
and management, which is reflected in the Uzbekistan National Wrestling team by-laws." He noted that 
the captain is elected annually by team members and "can only be occupied by a true leader of the sports 
team, i.e. an authoritative and experienced athlete, one of the strongest on the team." I I 
also provided a description of the functions performed by a team captain during competition "in 
accordance with the Rules of competition adopted by the Wrestling Association of Republic of 
Uzbekistan." However, the record does not contain the bylaws or rules ofcompetition, nor does it contain 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
8 Id. at 9. 
8 
any independent documentation confirming the Petitioner's election as team captain for five consecutive 
years. 
In light ofl Is statement that the team captain is "an authoritative and elperirced athlete," 
we note that the Petitioner himself was an 18-year-old college student illLJ As of at the end of 
his claimfid tenure as team captain, he competed for the team in the I I I category at the world championships, where he finished 18th. The record reflects that, during 
the Petitioner's claimed tenure as captain) 11 I andl I and 
other Uzbek wrestlers competed and won medals for the Uzbekistan National Team at major international 
events including the~and0Summer Olympics, World Championships and Asian Championships 
at the senior level. We while do not discount the possibility that the Petitioner had a leadership role on 
the team starting inDas initially claimed, additional objective erdence would be needed to support 
his later claim that he held the team captain role froml The Petitioner has not established 
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. 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)(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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9