sustained EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: JUL 30 2012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servin:" 
Admini.'>tralivc Appeals OfficI: (1\1\0) 
20 Mas~achu~ctls Ave .. N.\V .. M ...... 20l)() 
Washington. DC 2052lJ-2()9() 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant to Section 
203(b)( I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § IlS3(h)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this mailer have heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.goy 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on February 14, 2011. The petitioner appealed the decision with the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on March 18, 2011. The appeal will be sustained and the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the athletics, 
specifically, as a national team coach in biathlon, pursuant to section 203(b){l)(A) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.s.c. § I 153(b)(l)(A). The director determined that the petitiontr 
has not established the beneticiary's sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The AAO disagrees. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the beneficiary'S "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the beneficiary's achievements. See section § 203(b)( I )(A)( i) of 
the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of slIch an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
~, 
_the 
document entitled 
o 
a March 16, 2011 letter from _ 
(2) a February 2000 
, eligibility 
for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the AAO affirms the director's finding that the 
petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3), and further 
concludes that, in the final merits determination, the petitioner has demonstrated that the heneficiary is 
one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field and demonstrated the bencticiary's 
sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). Accordingly, the AAO 
sustains the petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
1. Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. - An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
-Page 3 
(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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 IOlst Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1 (NO); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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 CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 CF.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USClS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10). Although the court upheld the 
AAO's decision to deny the petition. the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the evidence 
submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria at 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "lInal merits detennination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the signiticance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did):' and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has tailed to satisJ~v the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 5% F.3d at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
Thus, Kazariull sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this case, the AAO finds that the petitioner has met at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and in the final merits 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed nuvel substantive or evidentiary rcquin.:mcnls 
hcyond Iho,e ,cliDrih in Ihe regutalions al H CF.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
Page 4 
determination, the petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is one of a small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field or that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See Section 
203(b)( I )(A) of the Act; ~ C.F.R. §§ 2()4.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Based on the record, the AAO affirms the director's conclusion that the petitioner meets three criteria. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has submitted the requisite 
evidence under at least three evidentiary categories. See ~ C.F.R, § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In accordance 
with the Kazarian opinion, the AAO will conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the 
evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) a "level of expertise 
indicating that [the beneficiary] is one of [ a] small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor," and (2) that the beneficiary "has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his [] achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)( I )(A) of the Act: 
~ C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Based on the evidence in the record and consistent with Maller of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm'r 1994), the AAO has made the requisite showing. Specifically, 
the association hired the beneficiary as 
where he trains internationally competitive athletes. 
1IIIt"'" reside in Grand Rapids, MN, where they train 
with the beneficiary on a year-round basis. In addition, stated that the athletes the 
beneficiary coaches have competed at the World Championships in 2004, 2006, 200~ to 2010, and 
obtained results ranging from a second place finish to a sixth place finish. In his April 10,20\0 letter, 
an athlete, stated that in the nine years that he has trained with the heneficiary, the 
bencticiary has coached him "Irom being a mid-level high school skier, to a National champion [in the 
15km Mass Start in 2010] and world-cup level Biathlete." He lurther stated that the beneficiary has 
worked with him as a senior athlete and helped him make the 2009-2010 U.S. World Cup Biathlon 
Team. 
In his March 16, 2010 letter, the confirmed the competitive 
success of the beneficiary'S "there's no question that 
~ficiary] is on,e [of1 the very t~p coaches in his field." further stated that _ 
_ "IS Amenca s leadmg hope for a medal at the next and thiS would never 
have been possible without the five years of coaching he received from [the beneficiaryT In his April 
19,2010 letter, that the beneficiary "has helped [him] to realize [his] dreams as 
an athlete." further statcd that the beneficiary's "hard work, sharp eye, and no-nonsense 
approach" has helped him achieve competitive results that led to his nomination "to thc highest level of 
· , 
Page 5 
the U.S. National Team. AI Tea~ 2010 training season." Similarly. according to an 
August 17. 2006 letter from __ U.S. Olympic Committee's Sport Partnerships 
Associate Director. "[the petitioner] has the educational background and personal ex perience as a 
coach needed for the development of Olympic champions. His knowledge of biathlon is superior to 
other coaches in the United States." 
Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has shown 
that the beneficiary is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field and demonstrated 
the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. ~~ 204.S(h) (2), (3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
In review, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by counsel. the 
petitioner has submitted evidence qualifying under three of the evidentiary criteria and established a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the \'ery 
top ofthe[irJ field of endeavor" and "sustained national or international acclaim." His achievements have 
been recognized in his field of expertise. The petitioner has established that he seeks to continue 
working in the same field in the United States. The petitioner has established that his entry into the 
United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has 
established eligibility for the benefit sought under section 203 of the Act. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act; 8 U.S.c. ~ 1361. Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition IS 
approved.