sustained EB-1A Case: Greco-Roman Wrestling Coach

(b)(6)
DATE: QCT 2 9 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
U.S . .Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Adminis trative Appe als Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF 
OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. 
:::;0;</7 
~j/~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on April 11, 2013. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on May 14, 2013. The appeal will be sustained and the petition 
will be approved. 
According to the petition, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics, specifically, as a Greco-Roman wrestling coach, pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The director determined that the 
petitioner has not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner has, however, established 
his eligibility. 
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)(l)(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 such 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 eligibllity requirements. 
On appeal, counsel files a 10-page brief and additional supporting documents. Counsel asserts that the 
petitioner meets the nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the original contributions of major significance criterion under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. 
I. THE 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-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
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 101st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 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 C.F.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 C.F.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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 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.
1 
With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.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 "final merits determination." 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 significance 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 failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian 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 petitioner has met at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and in the final merits determination, the 
petitioner has shown that he is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field and 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
(b)(6)
Page4 
that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The evidence of record, supports the director's findings that the petitioner meets the nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
and the leading or critical role for organizations or establishments criterion under the regulation at 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). In addition, the petitioner's evidence shows that as a Greco-Roman 
wrestling coach, he meets the original contributions of major significance criterion under the regulation 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence under at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, 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: (1) a level of expertise indicating that he is one of a 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, and (2) that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise. Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.P.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 Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm'r 1994), the petitioner has made the requisite showing. Specifically, according to a 2010 
official letter of invitation from -invited the petitioner to a training camp at the 
~ , _ Colorado, where he participated as a coach and 
assisted the United States' top Greco-Roman athletes repare for the In a 
document entitled _ _ on Greco-Roman 
Wrestling, states that at the training camp, the petitioner's "opinion was used to judge the level of 
preparedness of an athlete to upcoming competitions." The document further provides that the 
petitioner is "an internationally recognized coach with extraordinary abilities in the field of Greco-
Roman wrestling." Similarly, according to a letter from President of the 
and _ 
Republic, the petitioner "is a highly qualified Greco-Roman wrestling coach with extraordinary 
abilities," who "had been invited to the position of the assistant head coach of the 
team for preparation for the [2008] Beijing Olympics (China)." Moreover, in his letter, 
states that the petitioner "trained and prepared 
[him] for many Asian, World Championships and international tournaments," and the petitioner as a 
coach, "brought in new innovative approaches and techniques to Greco-Roman Wrestling." The 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
evidence in the record shows that the petitioner is one of the small percentage who are at the very top 
of the field and demonstrates his sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(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 or her 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 very 
top of the field of endeavor" and "sustained national or international acclaim." The petitioner's 
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.