dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Kickboxing

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Admmrstratme Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
As 
 ,- rt Q 1 qivaC) 
~fi~~aS~Oll 0; 3w. - 
JA-- Y U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC CORY 
 ervices 
FILE: 
 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: fm 1 1 2009 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant topsection 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts. The petitioner seeks 
employment as a kickboxer and instructor. In the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner identified 
his prospective United States employer as Shotokan Karate Center 11, Brooklyn, New York. 
Subsequent submissions have identified his employer as the Renzo Gracie Academy in New York. The 
petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts, but that the petitioner has not established that 
an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel and several witness letters. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -- 
(A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in,the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer. 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as an alien of exceptional ability. The director's 
sole adverse finding was that the petitioner had not established that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
Page 3 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 10 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly 
an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter ofNew York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comrnr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, 
it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must 
be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver 
must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would 
an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest 
cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used 
here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. 
We also note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree 
of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offerllabor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
In a statement accompanying the initial filing of the petition on March 2,2007, counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] has amply demonstrated that he is a national champion kickboxer and 
instructor of exceptional ability, well recognized internationally and that he will 
definitely be a benefit to the cultural interests of the United States. Internationally 
recognized experts confirm that [the petitioner's] performances and body of work has 
and will substantially benefit and improve the areas of athletics and arts in the United 
States. Clearly, [the petitioner] will substantially benefit prospectively the national 
cultural interests of the United States and his outstanding reputation will ensure his 
success in this country. 
. . . [H]e will also contribute greatly to the education of American children and adults in 
the art of kickboxing and corporeal expression. . . . 
[The petitioner] has created innovative and unique techniques which will benefit the 
American kickboxing by virtue of his original contributions to the prominent field. . . . 
[The petitioner's] preeminent level of talent, acumen, and expertise cannot be quantified 
because his exceptional skills are contingent upon his specialized knowledge in 
kickboxing. The instant petition is, therefore, outside the scope of the labor certification 
process. 
Counsel did not persuasively explain why the "petition is . . . outside the scope of the labor certification 
process." If there exists a valid job offer from a United States employer, and if the employer is able to 
articulate minimum requirements for the position, then the labor certification process applies. 
Furthermore, section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the statute does not indicate that an alien shall receive a waiver 
if the position sought is "outside the scope of the labor certification process." Rather, the statute 
requires a showing that a waiver is in the national interest. 
Documents submitted with the petition establish that the petitioner held World Kickboxing Association 
(WKA) Amateur United States Champion titles in 2003 and 2005 in his weight class, and that the 
petitioner was a member of the 2003 WKA United States National Team. 
The petitioner also submitted witness letters from three other kickboxers in New York City. 
stated: 
After competing against international fighters, [the petitioner] captured the 2003 World 
Kickboxing Association welterweight title. In 2004 he earned his place on the US 
National team. In 2005 [the petitioner] fought the most talented fighters in his division 
and won the W.K.A. National lightweight title. [The petitioner] ended the year 
undefeated and qualified for the US National team. In 2006 [the petitioner] continued 
competing and defended his title two times, winning both these matches and retaining 
his US titles. 
As a famous world renowned professional fighter and teacher, I, 
 can attest 
to [the petitioner's] Exceptional abilities not only as a fighter, but also as a coach. I 
myself continue to compete at the world class level, including the Pride Fighting 
Organization and International Fight League. For these matches, [the petitioner] has 
helped prepare myself and other noted professional fighters at my academy. 
Page 5 
I am a professional Muay Thai Boxing fighter. I hold multiple W.K.A. local and 
national titles. I have been competing and teaching for over 10 years. I have fought in 
matches all over the world, competing at the highest levels of the sport. 
. . . During these past 3 years I have been witness to [the petitioner's] national title 
contests and subsequent defenses of these titles. I was the lead trainer in his successful 
2006 title defense against the highly respected -1 
With my unique experience as a fighter, and my personnel [sic] observation I can highly 
recommend [the petitioner] as an athlete whose contributions to Thai Kickboxing are in 
the US national interests, as his record adequately shows. 
I've known [the petitioner] for the past 5 years. . . . [The petitioner] is a 2-time National 
Thai Kickboxing Champion and has been chosen to represent the US national team in 
Thai Kickboxing 3 times. . . . With this wealth of experience at the national and 
international level, [the petitioner] has been able to teach and pass on many of the skills 
he obtained, through competition, to hls students. 
Being the former Tri-State & Northeastern US champion I know how hard it is to 
achieve such a level of success. I've worked with Jamie very frequently in training for 
my fights, to get me to this high level of readiness. It is very important to have seasoned 
and experienced training partners when training for a fight of this caliber. [The 
petitioner] has helped me in both my physical and mental preparation, which contributed 
heavily to my success in this sport. 
On June 25, 2008, the director issued a request for evidence, instructing the petitioner to submit 
evidence that the petitioner's work is national in scope, as well as documentation to establish his 
contributions as an instructor and coach. 
In response, counsel stated: 
[The petitioner], as a coach, has created innovative and unique training and exercise 
methodology that benefit [sic] the American athletic and educational interests by virtue 
of his original and important contributions to the prominent field. . . . [The petitioner's] 
exercise and training methodology were featured in Men's Fitness, Martin Rooney 
Training for Warriors, and Gracie Magazine. 
Page 6 
(Counsel's emphasis.) The submitted excerpt from Training for Warriors by -consists of 
illustrated exercise instructions, followed by "a list of the warriors that have helped shape me and 
subsequently, the Training for Warriors system." The list includes 59 names, including the petitioner's 
name. Prior to this list, the author provided "the short list of people . . . without whom this book would 
surely never have happened." The petitioner is not among the six people named in this shorter list. 
This information indicates that, while the petitioner is among dozens who contributed to the book in 
some way, there is no evidence that the book prominently featured any methods developed by the 
petitioner. The petitioner submitted a letter from 
 himself, who praised the petitioner's 
"impressive contributions" but did not mention Training for Warriors or credit the petitioner with 
contributing significantly to that book. 
In his book, 
 did not specify the nature of the petitioner's contribution. The petitioner 
appears in several of the photographs illustrating the exercise routines. 
A photocopied excerpt from the August 2008 issue of Men's Fitness includes illustrated workout 
instructions. Photographs show the petitioner demonstrating a technique called the Single-Leg 
Burpee. The petitioner's name does not appear in the submitted excerpt, either to identify him in the 
photographs or to credit him with creating or improving any exercise method or routine. The 
submission also does not identify the author of the article. It is significant, however, that identical 
photographs of the petitioner demonstrating the Single-Leg Burpee appear in Training 
for Warriors. 
We note that the petitioner filed his petition more than a year before the publication of the August 
2008 issue of Men's Fitness. The beneficiary of an immigrant visa petition must be eligible at the 
time of filing. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45'49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Therefore, even 
if the petitioner had shown that the use of his image in that magazine was especially significant 
(which he has not done), this could not show that he already qualified for a national interest waiver 
in March 2007. 
The September 2007 issue of Gracie magazine also appeared after the petition's filing date. Once 
again, the petitioner's only evident involvement is that he apparently posed for several photographs to 
illustrate exercise techniques. The article's author is I, and the photographs appear to 
have been taken directly froms book. 
The published materials establish little except to show that the petitioner posed for photographs 
(possibly after the petition's filing date) which subsequently appeared in a number of publications. 
Counsel stated that the petitioner's "past and present contributions towards improving the prestige of 
American standing in kickboxing demonstrate that the prospective benefits that he will confer upon the 
United States are indeed national if not international in scope." The claim that the petitioner has 
"improv[ed] the prestige of American standing in kickboxing" demands evidence to show not only that 
this prestige has improved during the petitioner's career, but also that the petitioner is significantly 
responsible for that improvement. Rather than cite any specific evidence to that effect, however, 
counsel asserted that the petitioner's impact is "unquantifiable." Counsel did not explain how counsel 
was, nevertheless, able to discern that the petitioner has improved the prestige of American standing in 
kickboxing. 
The petitioner submitted new letters fiom kickboxing fighters and trainers in or near New York City. 
stated: 
My I.F.L. [International Fight League] fight team won the world title in 2007. [The 
petitioner] was a committed coach and member of my team. I have been personally 
coached by [the petitioner] for my domestic and international fights, as have all of my 
professional fighters at my N.Y.C. Academy. . . . 
I hereby acknowledge [the petitioner's] abilities as both a fighter and a coach. His 
expertise is to be recognized as above the threshold of exceptional ability. . . . [The 
petitioner] has coached team and individuals to the world title status, which substantially 
exceeds the effect that could be expected of any U.S. worker in his field. 
I . . . have been a professional fighter and trainer for the past two years. During this time 
I have been a national level squad member of the 2007 World Champion International 
Fight League team. I placed in top contention in the Brazilian World Championships, 
and I am also a two time pan American games [sic] medalist. 
With [the petitioner's] teaching over the last three years, I have come to achieve U.S. 
national recognition having fought five professional fights all televised throughout the 
U.S. 
I have been competing for over ten years, I am an Empire State Games Champion, 
National regional Champion, all American national Greco Roman champion. I qualified 
for the national U.S. team and was a member of the 2007 World Champion Pitbulls 
team. 
[The petitioner] is responsible for My Muay Thai training over the past two and a half 
years, his expertise and knowledge greatly improved my ability and performance, 
enabling me to excel and win my place on the national Pitbulls fight team, and 
eventually win the I.F.L. World Title. 
Other athletes and trainers, all in the vicinity of New York City, attested to the petitioner's national titles 
and memberships on national teams, and asserted that the petitioner had trained many prominent 
fighters. Witnesses indicated that the New York Pitbulls won the 2007 IFL World Team Championship 
due to the petitioner's work, but the record contains no first-hand documentary information about the 
championship to show the extent of the petitioner's involvement. 
The director denied the petition on September 29,2008. The director did not contest the intrinsic merit 
or national scope of the petitioner's occupation, but found that "the petitioner's past record as an 
outstanding Kick-boxer does not in itself establish prospective future benefit to the national interest as a 
coach or trainer." The director found "there is no evidence that independent coaches and trainers view 
the petitioner's individual work as particularly significant or influential." The director found no 
evidence that the petitioner had contributed significantly to Training for Warriors. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director "failed to consider the highly relevant evidence proffered 
by prestigious individuals in the field attesting to Petitioner's exceptional ability as a 
CoacWTrainer." The director, however, stated: "The record further indicates that peers in the field 
recognize the petitioner as an exceptional kick-boxing coacWtrainer." The record, therefore, directly 
contradicts counsel on this point. We will discuss the exceptional ability issue in further detail later 
in this decision. It will suffice, for now, to observe that aliens of exceptional ability are normally 
subject to the job offedlabor certification requirement. An alien does not qualify for a national 
interest waiver simply by submitting letters - regardless of their quantity - crediting the alien with 
exceptional ability. 
Counsel claims: "It is indisputable that the Petitioner/Applicant is a world-renowned Trainer and 
Coach." This proposition is far from "indisputable," and counsel cannot cut off discussion of the 
matter simply by declaring it to be beyond argument. Counsel further contends that a number of 
witnesses have achieved "national prominence" or are "known worldwide," but the unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 
(BIA 1988); Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). The petitioner, in this proceeding, has presented no factual claims 
that are so obvious that further evidence is unnecessary. Rather than produce such evidence, counsel 
has claimed that the director behaved in an "unfairly prejudicial" manner by failing to accept the 
hyperbolic and self-serving claims put forth in support of the petition. 
Counsel asserts that the director gave insufficient consideration to witness letters that attest to the 
petitioner's reputation. Counsel does not, however, explain why the petitioner's claimed reputation 
is so poorly documented that no evidence of this reputation exists except in the form of letters 
specially solicited for the petition. Certificates attest to the petitioner's past championship titles, but 
they do not imply comparable expertise as a coach or trainer. 
Counsel states: "It must be emphasized that the Petitioner is truly exceptional and widely acclaimed 
and is a defending champion in welterweight kickboxing and a coach for well known athletes for 
Page 9 
which he has received tremendous recognition both in the United States and abroad." These 
assertions must be not only emphasized, but proven as well. With regard to the repeated assertion 
that the petitioner "is a defending champion," the record contains no documentation to show that he 
has competed since 2005. 
Regarding the director's finding that 
 did not credit the petitioner as being a 
particularly significant contributor to Training for Warriors, counsel asserts that the director 
"prejudicially discounted the relevance and probative value of statement." The 
petitioner submits a second copy of - letter on appeal. Review of this letter confirms 
that did not mention the book at all in his letter. 
New witness letters accompany the appeal. 
 who knows the petitioner 
"professionally as well as personally," states: "As an Olympic team member, and a former coach of 
the Olympic Training Center, it is my professional opinion that [the petitioner] is clearly a coach of 
outstanding and exceptional qualities. . . . His record speaks for itself." identifies 
himself as an Olympic athlete, but does not identify his sport. 
. , who identifies himself as a welterweight world champion, states: "For the past 3 
years I have been coached by [the petitioner] in the art of Muay Thai kickboxing. . . . He has helped 
me to reach the pinnacle of the Mixed Martial Arts World." 
who also identifies himself as a welterweight world champion, states: "Having [the 
petitioner] as my Muay Thai coach has undoubtedly contributed to me reaching the highest level in 
this sport." 
Neither of the above two witnesses indicate that their championships are in the sport of Muay Thai 
kickboxing, or that the petitioner has ever been their primary coach. 
The remaining two witnesses work in fields unrelated to kickboxing. 
 a detective 
with the New York County District Attorney's office, has "had the pleasure of knowing [the 
petitioner] for approximately 6 years. I have found him to be a respectful, hard working, law abiding 
and very dependable person." The letter provides little except for general praise for the petitioner's 
personal character. 
Chief Executive Officer of Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., "first met [the 
petitioner] when I attended one of [his] Muay Thai Boxing classes. Since then, I have gotten to 
know [the petitioner] extremely well. . . . As the Chief Executive of the US operations of a major 
financial institution, I feel well qualified to write this letter on [the petitioner's] behalf." It is not 
immediately clear how a financial executive is "well qualified to attest to the abilities and 
reputation of a martial arts coach. 
The director denied the petition in large part because the petitioner relied heavily on letters from 
clients and acquaintances rather than objective, independent documentation. The petitioner, on 
appeal, cannot remedy this deficiency by submitting more letters from clients and acquaintances 
(some of them not even in the field of athletics) instead of objective, independent documentation. 
Counsel is of little help in this regard, calling some of the petitioner's claims "indisputable" in lieu 
of actually documenting them beyond dispute. 
Here, we do not make a categorical finding that it is impossible for the petitioner to qualify for the 
national interest waiver. As counsel has observed, sports coaches are eligible for consideration for 
the waiver. We do, however, find that the petitioner, in this proceeding with the evidence submitted, 
has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that he qualifies for the waiver. This is not a 
definitive finding of ineligibility, but a finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility. 
Having affirmed the director's decision to deny the application for a national interest waiver, we turn 
to the director's other finding, regarding the petitioner's claim of exceptional ability in the arts. The 
director stated: 
The record in this case indicates that the petitioner was a World Kick-boxing 
Association (WKA) Welterweight full contact USA Kick-boxing champion in 2003. 
Furthermore, the petitioner was an official member of the 2005 WKA U.S. amateur 
national team. The petitioner was also a WKA USA amateur light welter weight 
kick-boxing champion in 2005. The petitioner is currently working as a coach at the 
prestigious Renzo Gracie Kick-Boxing Academy in New York City. The record 
further indicates that peers in the field recognize the petitioner as an exceptional kick- 
boxing coacwtrainer. 
Review of the record leads us to revisit this finding. The AAO maintains plenary power to review 
each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, 
the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may 
limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 
1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the federal 
courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(k)(3)(ii) states that, to show that the alien is an alien of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, the petition must be accompanied by at least three 
of the following: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of 
learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he 
or she is being sought; 
a Page 11 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 
If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit 
comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
The evidentiary standards at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F) are requirements, rather than 
optional or suggested guidelines. Furthermore, the "comparable evidence" clause at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(k)(3)(iii) applies only when the specified standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation. If the standards do readily apply to the occupation overall, then the petitioner's personal 
inability to meet those criteria cannot suffice to trigger the "comparable evidence" provision. Neither 
the petitioner nor counsel (nor the director) has the discretion to arbitrarily substitute other claimed 
evidence of exceptional ability in place of regulatory standards that readily apply to the petitioner's 
occupation. 
 The submission of a series of witness letters, each describing the petitioner as 
"exceptional," cannot and will not suffice as evidence of exceptional ability. 
In this instance, the petitioner and counsel have never addressed the regulatory requirements relating to 
exceptional ability. Instead, in the initial submission, counsel cited only two factors: the petitioner's 
"numerous trophies and awards" and "testimonial letters" fkom "numerous prestigious individuals." 
The petitioner's awards amount to evidence of recognition that satisfies 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), 
but he still must satisfy at least two of the remaining five criteria, or demonstrate that those criteria do 
not readily apply to his occupation. 
In the RFE, the director stated: "The evidence submitted with the petition does not show that the 
petitioner is an alien of exceptional ability as a kick boxing instructor/coach." The director referred to 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The petitioner's response to the RFE, however, failed to address the 
requirements set forth in the cited regulation. Instead, counsel stated: 
We respectfully submit that [the petitioner] qualifies for classification as an Alien of 
Exceptional Ability in the Arts pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(k)(3)(ii). [The petitioner] 
has most definitely risen to the top in the field of kickboxing as well as in coaching and 
as a person with exceptional ability in the arts. He has been widely recognized as one of 
the most talented and foremost kickboxers in the United States and abroad. 
Unquestionably, his exceptional ability in the arts exceeds that ordinarily encountered by 
one customarily employed in the arts. 
Counsel acknowledged the existence of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.50(3)(ii), but made no effort to explain how 
the petitioner's evidence meets the standards set forth in the cited regulation. Instead, without 
explanation, counsel substituted an ad hoc series of standards, stating that the petitioner has earned 
"world recognition" and "trained world famous athletes," and that the witness letters establish his 
exceptional ability. 
Analysis of the available evidence indicates that the petitioner has satisfied only two of the six criteria at 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(3)(ii), and that the petitioner has provided nothing that would trigger the 
"comparable evidence" clause at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(3)(iii) by showing that the standards do not readily 
apply to the petitioner's occupation. 
An ofJicial academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certiJicate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
The petitioner claims no post-secondary education. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The record is virtually silent regarding the petitioner's activities prior to 2003. Vague assertions that 
the petitioner has been a martial artist for decades are not evidence of full-time experience in the 
occupation he seeks. 
A license to practice the profession or certiJication for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
The petitioner holds a license issued by the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board. The record 
does not show whether this is required (in which case the license is routine rather than exceptional). 
Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to show that this license is evidence that the petitioner's 
expertise exceeds what is normally encountered in his field. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
The record contains no evidence regarding the petitioner's compensation. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204,5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The petitioner's membership on national teams appears to be comparable to membership in 
professional associations where exceptional ability is a condition for membership. The petitioner 
satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and signijicant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
As noted previously, the petitioner's championship titles satisfy this criterion. The regulations, 
however, clearly indicate that championship titles are not sufficient proof of exceptional ability. 
The petitioner has only partially satisfied the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Therefore, we cannot agree with the director's finding that the petitioner has satisfactorily 
established that he qualifies as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. tj 1361. The petitioner has 
not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.