sustained EB-1A Case: Professional Wrestling

(b)(6)
Date: DEC 1 2 2013 
INRE: 
APPLICATION: 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigtation .Services 
O!fi9e of Administrative Appeals 
20 Ma~l!.chusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Itntnigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 
Thank you, 
¥-!- z:L:__ 
I--Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
OlSCUSSlON': The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
suStained; the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordi.Q.ary ability" in athletics, as a professional 
wrestler, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the lmniigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as ~n alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benclunark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiri.ng through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate th_e alien's "sustained n~tional or international acclaim'' and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.ER. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2045(h)(3) states that an alien CClil 
establish sustained national or international accl~i.J:n through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, tile regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
subm:it qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred by failing to consider all evidenee submitted in support 
of the petition and therefore, the record should be remanded for furt _b:er consideration. Specifically, 
counsel asserts that the director failed to consider the supplemental evidence submitted in response to 
the director's Request for Evidence ~ (RFE) relating to the petitioner's salary. Courtsel also notes that the 
director's final decision did not consider the submitted evide11ce relating to iesser nationally or 
ipterpationally recognized awards. 
I. lAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinellt part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified irn.migrants 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 sdences, arts, education, 
bQsiness, 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 t.he aJea of 
e~traordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and N~turalizationService 
(INS) nave GOnsistently reeogn~ed that Congress intended to set a very high standard for wdivtdu~s 
Seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordin~ry ~bility. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nbv. 29, 199'i). The tenn "extraor4inary ability'' refers only to 
thos~ ~ndividu._al~ in tb.~t SIDall percentage who have risen to the vety top of the field of ep.de~vor. Jd.; 
8 G.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Ib¢ r~gu.l~tion ?~ 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 establish~d · 
either through evidente of a one-time .achievement (tb~t i~, a major, international recognized award) or 
through (he subqiission of qualifying evidence under at ieast three of tb~ ~n ~tegories of evidence 
listed 
at 8 C.F.R. 
1
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). · 
l.n 20l0, tbe l]._$. Co11rt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) re.vi.ewed the denial of a petition 
flied under this classification. J(az.arian y. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cit. 2010). Althougb the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the. p-e~ition, the cmirt took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
eviden~ subn.ritted to 1lleet · a given evidentiary criteriort.1 With respect to tb,e criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi); the c;ourt conc;luded that while-USCIS may have raised legit_iroate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
b®nrl:l.is~d i_n a subsequent ''final merits determination." 14. at 1121-ZZ_. 
'the court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on <m. im.pr()per understanding of the regulations. 
~tead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the iuitiru inquicy,·the court stated that ''the 
proper procedUre is to count th~ types ofevidence provided (wliich the AAQ did)," @d if the petitioner 
failed to submit Sufficient evidence, ''the proper conclusion i.s that the applicant has failed to satisfy ili.e 
I -. . · - .. . . .. 
regtilatQry requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO conclud,ed)," /d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F,R. § 204.5(11)(3)), 
I 
( 
Thlls, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the eviden® is fust .:::ounted and then considered 
in the (;ontex:t o{ a fiu~f I_Ilerits determination. in this matter, the AAO wil.l review the evidence under 
the plain language reqUirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit q\lalifying 
evidence under . at leaSt thtee criteria; the prop¢r conclusion Is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy t_he 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
I, 
1 SpeCifically, the coQ.tt ·stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel sub~taQtiv~ ot evidentiMY 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at · 8 C.F.R, § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISiON 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The director concluded that the petitioner submitted evidence of published material and le~din.g or 
critical roles pursuant to 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (yiil). The record supports these determin:ations~ 
Thus, if the petitioner satisfies a third criterion, a final merits determination is :required. 
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). 
The record reveals that the petitioner· submitted evidence relating to this criterion i.ft respons.e to the, 
director's RFE. Specifically, counsel discussed this criterion on p~ges 7 through 10 of the RFE 
response and the petitioner submitted 10 exhibits relating to this criterion. The director, however, did 
not address this criterion or acknowledge the exhibits the petitioner submitted. Consequently, on 
appeal, petitioner requests that the record be remanded to enable tbe director to make a determination on 
the evidence of record. In light of the AAO's de novo review, the AAO shall consiqertbe evidence of 
prizes and awards the petitioner submitted ~ong with the RFE response. See Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
1002 n.9 (2d Cir.1989)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo b~sis). 
The petitioner submitted documents relat~d to the following as evidence of lesser nationally or 
internationall recognized prizes or awards: the In the 
~ ~ 
m 
; and various other titles and championships. The evidence of 
and the 
ate lesser nationally or intern~tionally recognized prizes or awards. for excellenCe iil the 
field of endeavor. Biographical articles .and general interest articles a:bou,t the petitioner;s wrestling 
persona, associate both titles with him. Published· material in major media frequently 
refers to as the . In addition, the _letter Of 
support that President of the writes on behalf of the petitioner 
specifically observes that the petitioner's rise to prominence occurred ip. 1997 when he won the 
The record establishes that at least two of the aw~ds that 
the petitioner requested the director to consider under this criterion are nationally reeognized prizes. of 
awards in the field of professional wrestling. 
Consequently, the petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
~..) - ~ 
B. Final Merits Determination 
The petitioner has submitted relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three 
types of evidence. Because the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three 
evidentiary categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not tile petitioner has 
demonstrated: ( 1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who 
(b)(6)
NON~PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) ''that the alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and tba,t . his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F,3d at 1119-20. 
The petitioner is a professjon.;JI wrestler who is a: well-known figure in the 
system, a fixture in Mexica:rt c.ulture. While the petitioner won 011e of }J.is qualifying titles at a ''junior" 
level competition, he went on to win a nationally recogrtized title above that leveL The pet.ittoner's 
prominence in the circuit is well-documented by major sporting and print media. The 
petitioner's wrestling petsona, . , has made appeaxances on telev~sion, multiple movies, as 
a cartoon character on a cartoon show, and in graphic novels. ne wrestling persona is 
the spokesperson for multiple products ~d the specifically developed a 
bearing the oil its packaging. The persona also has headlined 
m.llltiple fights ~ a number of countries including Mexico, Canada, and the Ullited States. 
While not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by col,Ulsel, consistent with 
Matter of Price, 20 l&N Pee. 953 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r. 1994), the AAO finds the evidence of record 
sufficient to establish that the petitioner has dem.onstrated his eligibility for the classification sought. 
Specifically, upon careful 
review of the record, it is concluded that the petitio11er has demonstrated by a 
prepondera,nce of the evidence that he is within the small percentage of individuals who have ti.sen to 
· the very top of the field of fashion. The evidence s11b:vtitted indicates that the petitioner has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recogn_ized by the wrestling 
indttstry. As a reslllt, the petitioner quallfies as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of e~tnmrdinary ability must demonstrate that the 
alien ha.s achieved sust~ined national or international aeclaiin and · is one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner has established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may be approved. -
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
. (BlA 2013). Here, the petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn.. The appeal is sustained and the petition is 
approved.