dismissed O-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
p1.JBLlC COpy 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 
l'.~. Ikjlilrtflll'n! of lIomdand 'l'UII i1,\ 
1 _~_ ('liil<'i!"ilq' ,(lid [1l~1111,"'r.ill'\'1 -'')c' " 1,\'· 
\dl1l:~li',!I;!l!'l' -\PI'l'.lh I)tt:v,' \.\() 
.: i j \ LI' < '\ 'I _,-<, (" _ \ \'~ . '- \\ _. \ I -" '(I'!I: 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
FEi3 0 3 20\\ 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)( 15)(0) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 US.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0). 
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 been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he advised that 
any furthcr inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that officl'. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision. or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. * 103.5. All motions must be 
submittcd to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B. Notice of Appeal or Motion. 
with a fee of S630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)0) requires that any motion Illust be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the Illation seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
/ .'~' "'\ 
Pcrry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
\\ W\'Luscis.gO\-
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss thc appeal. 
The petitioner. an international sports management agency, filed this petition seeking to classify the 
beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101(a)( 15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U .S.c, 1101 (a)( 15)(0)(i), as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner seek> 
to employ the beneficiary as a track and field athlete for a period of three years. 
On March 31, 2010, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that thc 
heneficiary has received "sustained national or international acclaim" or to demonstrate that he is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. Specifically, the director determined 
that the evidence submitted did not satisfy the criteria set forth at 8 c'F.R. * 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or at least 
three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 c'F.R. * 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director erred by undervaluing the 
significance of the beneficiary's Ugandan national awards in track and field, and by ovcrlooking or assigning little 
evidentiary weight to other evidence submitted to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. Counsel asserts that the 
petitioner submitted evidence that meets four of the eight evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. * 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B), 
and thus established that the beneficiary qualifies as an athlete of extraordinary ability under section 
101 (a)( 15)(0) of the Act. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section 10 I (a)( 15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.s.c, § 1101 (a)( IS)(O)(i), provides for the classification of a qualified 
alien who: 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics \.vhich has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and vvhosc achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and secks to enter the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive for aliens 111 
the fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences. See 59 FR 41818, 41819 (August 15, 1994): 137 
Congo Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily cd., Nov. 26,1991) (comparing and discu"ing the lower standard for the 
arts). 
In a policy memorandum, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) emphasized: 
It must be remembered that the standards for 0, I aliens in the fields of business, education, 
athletics, and the sciences are extremely high, The 0-1 classification should be reserved only 
for those aliens who havc reached the very top of their occupation or profession. Thc 0-1 
classification is substantially higher than the old H-I B prominent standard. Officers invol ved 
in the adjudication of these petitions should not "water down" thc classification hy approving 
0-1 petitions for prominent aliens. 
Memorandum, Lawrence Weinig, Acting Asst. Comm'r., INS, "Policy Guidclines for the Adjudication of 0 
and P Petitions" (June 25, 1992). 
The regulation at 8 CF.R. * 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent pal1: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 a/;en of extraordinary ability hI the fields (~r science, educatioll, 
business, or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of sciellce, education, 
husiness, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expel1ise by providing evidence of: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobcl Prize: or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(/) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for exccllcnce in the field of endeavor; 
(2) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
cla~sification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized or international expens in their disciplines or 
fields: 
(3) Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification IS 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, 
and any necessary translation; 
(4) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a Judge of the 
work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
Page 4 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly aJ1icies in the field. in professional 
joumals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(Ii) Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
Additionally. the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be cxecuted by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized expel1s certifying to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set f0l1h the expel1ise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily estoblish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under lhese criteria, the AAO will follow a two-pal1 approach set fOl1h 
in a 20 I 0 decision issued by the U.S. Coul1 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. K(/~{/ri({11 1'. USC/S, 20 I 0 WL 
72'i317 (9'" Cir. March 4. 2(10). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant classification. the 
regulations reviewed by the Kazarian COUI1 require the petitioner to submit evidence pCI1aining to at least three 
out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ahility_ 
Cf X C.F.R. ~ 204.'i(h)(3) 
The coul1 slaled 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 slaled that "the proper procedure is to 
count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficiem 
evidence, "the proper conclusion is that lhe applicanl has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three 
Page 5 
types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 CF.R. * 204.)(h)(1)). The court also 
explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has suhmitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates hath a "level of expettise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of thelir] field of endeavor," 8 CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2), 
and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of ex penis e." 8 CF.R. ~ 204.)(h)(3). Only aliens 
whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligihle for 
an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 USC § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i). 
iii. at *3. 
Thus, Ku~ariall sets fOlth a two-pan approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under at 
least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. The AAO finds the K{/~(/ri(/Il eoun's 
two paIt approach to he appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set faIth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions 
for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, in reviewing Service 
Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set fonh in Kazarian. See Spencer Llllerprises, Inc. v. United 
Stales, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2(01), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 20(3); see a/so SO/lline I'. 
f)().I, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2(04) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de IlO\'() basis). 
In the present maller. the petitioner has submilled evidence peItaining to several of the evidentiary criteria, hut has 
not estahlished that the beneficiary has risen to the very lOp of his field or that he has achieved sustained national 
or international acclaim. 8 CF.R. §§ 214.2(0)(3)(ii) and (iii). 
II. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The beneficiary in this matter is a native and citizen of Uganda. The record renects that the beneficiary was a 
student athlete competing in track and field competitions ••••••••• I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~ 
and for Louisiana State University ("LSU") in 2007 and 2008. He rer,re"ented 
If the petitioner establishes through the submi"ion of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received 
a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 CF.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its 
burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulations cite to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. Id. Given that the regulations specifically cite to the Nobel 
Prize as an example of a one-time achievement, examples of one-time award:-. which enjoy major. 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant for 
athletics) an Olympic Medal. The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported 
in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at 
large. and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a 
one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress 
that the award must be internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
Page 6 
There is no evidence that the henefieiary has received any major, internationally-recognized athletic awards, 
and the petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion, 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally r~cognizcd award, the 
petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at H 
C.F.R, ~ 2142(0)(3)(iii)(B)1 
1 . Documentation (~l the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally rccogn;:.ed pri:.cs or £HHlrds 
lin' excellence in the field olendeavor 
The petitioner has submitted documentary evidence pel1aining to the following athletic prizes and award>: 
• Ccl1ificatc, 
National Track and Field Championsh' 
• UAAF National Track and Field Championships, 
• CCl1ificate, All-American, First Team, Men's Outdoor Track & Ficld DiviSion I of the 
National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) ••••••• 
• Certificate, All-American, Second Team, Men's Outdoor Track & Field Division I of the 
NJCAA ••••• 
• Certificate,_NJCAA National Champion, 800M event; 
• Cel1ificate, All-American, First Team, Men's Outdoor Track & Field Division I of the 
NJCAA. ___ _ 
• Certificate, Honorable Mention, Men's Outdoor Track & Field Division I All-American 
Team of the NJCAA 
• Division I Men's Cross Country National 
Championshi 
• Results showing that the beneficiary won "Heat 2" in the 800M event al the .1 IAAF 
World Junior, , " 
• A newspaper article titled presents athletes with awarels,"_ 
••••• edition of the Levelland & Hockley Count\' Nell'-P"ess, which mcntions the 
beneficiary's receipt of the ' MYP Award in Track; 
• A newspaper article titled 
provided), which mentions 
, (name and dale of publication not 
adlie\led a first-place finish in the XOO meter 
event at the LSU Alumni Gold track and fieidmeeL 
• , A newspaper article titled. track team striding toward NJCAA Nalional Meel,_ 
issue of Plainsman Press, The article mentions two meets, the TCU 
Invitational and the ML Sac Relays, in which the beneficiary placed in the top 3 finishers in 
the 800 meter event. 
I The petitioner has not claimed to meet or submitted evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 7 
The evidence of record also mentions several other athletic awards, prizes or honors that have not been fully 
documented. In a letter dated January 15,2010, the petitioner stated: 
[The beneficiary[ competed very successfully at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana on a full athletic scholarship. He placed in the Southeastcrn Confercnce outdoor 
chamii'onShiPs in the--'2007 and 2008 and placed in the finals of the 800 meters in 
the NCAA Indoor Cham.·onshi s. He also won the National Junior College 
Championships in the SOO meters i 
The pctitioner also submitted an advisory opinion letter from 
states that "it is USATF's "n,~e"""nni that [ career 
include placing 5'1; in the 800m at _ NCAA Indoor Championship and earning All-American honors. 
placing 2"" in the 800m at_ NJCAA Outdoor Championships and 1" in the 800m _ NJCAA 
Outdoor Championships." 
finally, the beneficiary mentions the following awards in his resume: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
finish at the NCAA Indoor Championships in 800 meters, 
ten time All-American in Track and Field/Cross Country; 
All-South Eastern Conference Track and Field; 
, place finish in 800 meters and 4 x 800 meter relay and 2'" place finish in 4x4(X) meter relay 
NJCAA Championship 
Most Valuable Player in Track and Field; 
Bronze Medalist East and Central African Championship in 400 meters 
The petitioner submitted a photograph of the beneficiary wearing six unidentified medals. We note that at least 
one of the medals appears to be an NJCAA medal, and four of the medals bear an image of three runners. None 
of these medals specify a date, event category or placing result. The petitioner submitted a second photograph of 
various certificates, plaques, trophies and medals. Five of the awards bear the NCAA insignia, but no I' ul1her 
information regarding the awards is visible or legible in the photograph. 
On Fehruary 9, 20 I 0, the director issued a request for additional evidence C'RFE"), in which the director observed 
that the heneficiary "has competed at the collegiate level in regards to all of his track and field events and 
accomplishments." The director advised that additional evidence would be rcquired to establish that the 
beneficiary has risen to the very top of his spOl1 despite having only competed at the collegiate level. In this 
regard. the director instructed the petitioner to submit evidence to establish the origination. purpose, significance 
and scope of each national and international award received by the beneficiary. as well as information regarding 
the criteria used to nominate and judge the paiticipants and award winners, and evidence identifying the winllers 
of each award over the past three to five years. 
In response to the RFE, counsel for the petitioner assel1ed that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on his 
first plaee finishes_National Track and Field Championships" in the 400 meter run event in. 
_The pet~ed the above-referenced certificates issued by the UAAF. The petitioner also 
Page 8 
submitted a letter from 
states: 
Uganda Athletics Federation is the national governing body for track and field in Uganda. The 
Federation is a member of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the 
global body for the sport of Athletics. The lAAF consists of the national governing bodies for 
track and field throughout the world. 
Ugandan Federation is composed of both amateur and elite athletes. To be an elite athlete you 
must have the capability to represent the country in international competitions. 
_tates that the beneficiary is a "national elite athlete" who will represent Uganda at the African 
Senior Championships in Athletics and at the Commonwealth Games 
The director determined the evidence submitted fails to satisfy the criteria at 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(0)(3)( iii)(B)(/). 
The director acknowledged that the petitioner submitted certificates for the beneficiary\ first-place finishes at the 
Track and Field Championships in the 400 meter run event. However. the 
the cel1ificates alone are insufficient to establish the significancc of the awards. 
Specifically, the director found that the petitioner "has not provided USClS with corroborating evidence 
regarding the origination, purpose, significance, and scope of each award or the criteria used to nominate and 
judge the pal1icipants and award winners." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter dated April 17,2010 from_ who statcs: 
[The beneficiary [ finished in first place in the 400 meters at the U 
Championsh ips 
Kampala. 
Both competitions III 
The Uganda National Track and Field Championships are conducted by the Uganda Athletics 
Federation, and are the national competition to crown Uganda's national champions in each track 
and field discipline (e.g. 400 meters, long jump) through head-to-head compelition. Uganda's 
athletes who have the fastest times or best marks are invited to these championships and the 
winner of each event is Uganda's national champion in that event. 
[The beneficiary] was therefore _ National Champion in the 400 meters •••••• 
-
Counsel a~sCI1s that "in track and field, an athlete can receive no higher national award than being recognized as 
the national champion in his or her event," and therefore contends that the petitioner has submitted evidence that 
clearly satisfies the plain meaning of this regulatory criterion. 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the submitted evidence satisfies the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
~ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(1). 
Page <) 
The director's finding that the petitioner provided no corroborating evidence regarding the origination. purro~e. 
significance. and scope of the beneficiary's 2002 and 2004 national track and flcld championships is incorrect. 
The petitioner provided a letter from an official of the national governing body of the beneficiary's spm1 anesting 
to the significance of the beneficiary's first place finishes national track and field championship 
events. While it is true that not every event that is open to athletes from throughout a country is a "nationally­
recognized" event, an event that results in a "national champion" recognized as such hy the SPOil's national 
governing body does meet the plain language of this criterion. The AAO notes that in 2004. the year in which the 
beneficiary won his second national championship, the beneficiary also represented Uganda at the IAAF World 
Junior Championships. 
While the petitioner has established that the beneficiary's championships III the 400 meter event 
4ualify under this criterion, the petitioner has not established that any of the beneficiary's other documcnted and 
claimed awards are nationally or internationally recognized awards. 
As discussed previously. the petitioner submitted a photograph of the beneficiary wearing six medals. None 
of these medals specify a date, event category, or placing result, and the petitioner provided no information 
regarding the significance of the medals. Therefore, the photograph of the medals is insufficient to establish 
that any of them evidences the beneficiary'S receipt of a nationally-recognized prize or award. Similarly. 
while thc petitioner submitted a photograph of various NCAA trophies and other unidentified awards. the 
record contains no other evidence of any claimed NCAA prizes or awards received by the beneficiary. such as 
otTicial results from events, cel1ificates. close-up photographs of the awards thelll~t·I\'l'.'i, media coverage of 
the awards. or a letter from an official representative of the NCAA or from an official of the Louisiana State 
University's athletics program attesting to the beneficiary's individual achievements. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burdcn of proof in these 
proceedings. Matla of'So/fici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Tr('{l.l'ltr(' Crati of 
Calif()rnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r. 1972)). While Mr. Logan of the USA TF indicates that the 
bcneficiary placed 5'" in the NCAA 800 meter finals in 2008, we note that this rcsult, even if well­
documented, would not he considered a nationally-recognized "prize or award" as the beneficiary was not 
among the medalists in the event. 
The only other doculllented awards in the record are some of the beneficiary's claimed NJC AA awards. 
including his title as the 2005 NJCAA National Champion in the 800M evenl. his placement on two NJCAA 
Division I All-American First Teams, his placement on one NJCAA Division I All-American Second Team. 
and an NJCAA All-American honorable mention. With regard to the preceding NJC AA awards, the record 
does not include supporting evidence demonstrating the significance of these Junior calkge awards and the 
magnitude of the junior college national championships. Again, the plain language of the regulatory criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. * 214.2(0)(3)Oii)(8)(1) specifically requires that the beneficiary's awards be nationally or 
internationally r('co/illi;cd in the field of endeavor and it is the petitioner's burden to establish every element 
of this criterion. In this case, there is no evidence establishing that the beneficiary'S NJCAA awards had a 
significant level of recognition in his sport beyond the context of the event where they were received and 
therefore were commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or av-'ards for excellence in 
the field. Moreover, while the competition for these awards may have been open to junior college athletes 
from throughout the country, this factor alone is not adequate to establish that an <l\\'ard OJ" prize i~ "nationally 
Page 10 
or internationally recognized." The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and 
achi~v~m~nt associated with the beneficiary's NJCAA awards. 
Th~ b~neficiary indicates in his resume that he received a bronze medal in the 400 m~tcr run at th~ 200 I East 
and Central African Championship. The petitioner has provided no corroborating evidence of the beneficiary's 
receipt of this award. Moreover, the record does not include evidence demonstrating the significancc of this 
award or the magnitude of this competition. As stated previously, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Molter of'Soffiei. 22 I&N Dec. at 158. Furthermore, as previously discussed, a competition may be open to 
athletes from throughout a particular country or countries, but this factor alone is not adequate to establish 
that an award or prize is "nationally or internationally recognized." The burden is on the petitioner to 
demonstrate the level of recognition and achievement associated with his awards. 
The petitioner submitted a eertificat~ from the NJCAA stating the beneficiary: "Particirat~d in the Division I 
Men's Cross Country Championship. ." There is no evidence showing that this 
certificate equates to a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. rather than simply an 
acknowledgment of the petitioner', participation in the competition. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
"While he was a student athlete here at be.nef·iciary J helps Jsicllead our team to Runner-up position 
in the NCAA championships." He also states that the beneficiary "was name JsieJ lirst Team All S.E.c. 
performer ." _letter does not specify the hcnci"ici' . competitive 
achievements that led to the LSU men's team's second place finish. Further, 
provide information regarding the total number of LSU men's team Illcmhers the points 
each of the petitioner's fellow team members earned competing for LSU at the NCAA Championships. and 
the points earned by the beneficiary himself. It cannot suffice that the beneficiary was part of a large track and 
field team that earned collective recognition. Furthermore, as noted above, none of the beneficiary's specific 
NCAA achievements have been adequately documented, as the petitioner submitted only a photograph of 
various unidentified NCAA awards and trophies. With respect to _mention of the benciiciary's 
placement on the All SEC Performer First Team, we note that awards from the "Southeastern Conference." 
consisting of twelvc universities, are regional collegiate awards rather than nationally Of intcrnationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the beneficiary' field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an article and race results from an unidentified newspaper indicating that the 
beneficiary placed first in his event at the LSU Alumni Gold Track Meet. Aside from failing to submit 
evidence of the beneficiary's actual prize or award from the event, the record docs not include supporting 
evidence demonstrating that the LSU Alumni Gold Track Meet was a national competition rather than a 
regional competition. For instance, the meet results indicate that the vast majority of the competitors were 
from colleges located in the Southeastern and South Central United States. In this instance, there is no 
evidence establishing that the petitioner's LSU Alumni Gold first place finish equates to a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in his sport. Similarly, while the beneficiary's third 
and first place finishes events were rl'porled by the Floil/Sillill/ 
Press, the petitionef provided no evidence of the beneficiary's actual prizes or 3\\'ards from tbe events, or any 
supporting ('vidence demonstrating that either meet was a national competition rathlT than a regional 
Page 11 
competition. Finally, the beneficiary's Track MVP award from South Plains College was reported by a local 
newspaper and reflects only institutional recognition from his junior college's athletic department. 
Finally, the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary's inclusion on the 'Top Lists" for the 
Indoor 800 meter event qualifies under this criterion. The petitioner relies on this same evidence to meet the 
evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3), as will be discussed further below. It should be 
emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. To hold otherwise would 
render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a 
beneficiary meet at least three separate criteria. Regardless, the petitioner has not established how mere inclusion 
on the 'Top List" statistical rankings, while notable, constitutes receipt of a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the sport. The beneficiary posted the 20'" fastest time in the 800 
meters in the sub-category of "oversized track" IS of While it may be correct to state 
that most runners will never be named on the Top List, the AAO cannot consider any mention of the beneficiary 
in the IAAF rankings to be a nationally or internationally recognized "prize or award." 
Based on the foregoing, we must conclude that the beneficiary has not documeIlted the beneficiary's receipt of 
any nationally or inlemationally re(:og:n,,~ea 
in the 400 meter event, rec'ei'led 
ft1l1her in our final merits determination below. 
or awards other than his two Ugandan national championship" 
The weight to be given to this evidence will be discussed 
2. Docwuentation (~rthe alien's membership in associations in tlze.field.f(lr r1·hich classification 
is sought. which require outstanding achievements (~f"the;r members asjwlgcd hy rccogni::.cd 
IWlhmal or inlernlllional experts in Iheir disciplines or fields. 
The director determined, without comment, that the beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. ~ 
214.2(0)(3)( iii)(B)(2). The petitioner claims that the beneficiary meets this criterion hased on his membership 
on the lIgandan national and Olympic teams. In support of this claim, the petitioner submitted a \eller dated 
March 9, 20 I 0 from states: 
[The beneficiary[ is an 
Elite Athlete Member 
ympie Committee. To be an 
arrllJll.~ the top three in his or her 
event in the entire country. and have the ability to represent Uganda in international 
competition, including the Olympic Games. 
[The beneficiary [ meets these criteria. This year, he is Uganda's runner 
In Athletics in indoors. He will 
Nairobi, Kenya from 
Delhi, India 
London. 
the Commonwealth Ciames III New 
III 
The record also contains a letter dated March 9, 2010 from 
also confirms that the beneilel is an elite national athlete. "currently 
and runner indoors." 'rlso confirms 
that the beneficiary will Senior Championships in Athletics and the 
Page 12 
The record also contains evidence that the beneficiary competed for the Ugandan 
National Team at the IAAF World Junior Championships •••• 
While an athletic team is not strictly speaking an "association," it is nonetheless equally true that an athlete 
can earn a place on a national or an Olympic team only through rigorous competition which separates the very 
best from the great majority of participants in a given sport. Therefore. an athlete's membership on an 
Olympic team or a major national team such as a World Cup soccer team may serve to meet this criterion as 
slich tcams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous selection process. We reiterate. 
however, that it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets every element of a givcn 
criterion, including that he is a member of a team that requires outstanding achicvclllcnh of its memhcrs. a" 
judged by recognized national or international experts. We will not presume that every national "tcam" is 
sufficiently exclusive. Here, the petitioner provided evidence that only the very top athletes in the 
beneficiary's sport are selected to compete on the Ugandan national and Olympic teams based on their 
performance. Therefore, we concur with the director's determination that the evidence submitted meets this 
criterioll. 
3. Pu/Jlished male ria/ in prqfessional or major trade pu/Jlications or major media about tht 
alien, relating 10 the alien's work in lhefleldfor H-hich classification is sOllgh!, Hhich shall 
inc/ude !Ile title, dale, and author qfsuch published maler;al, and any ncc('ssory trans/olio!l 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at B C.F.R. ~ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(8)(.i), it must be 
primarily "about" the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in rrofcssional or major trade 
publications or other major media. To qualify as major media. the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publ icatiol1. Some 
newspapers. such as the Nee,. York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media 
because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted a captioned photograph of the benet" track 
tcam mcmbers r I 
photographs accompanied a May 3. 2006 mtiele in the preceding local Texas newspaper entitled_ 
rresents athletes with awards." The artiele mentions that the beneficiary received the Track MVP award, but the 
allick was not ahout thc beneficiary, nor does this local newspaper constitute "major media." 
The petitioner submitted an altiele from the May 3, 2006 edition 
__ NJCAA" (2006), but the article only briefly mentions the beneficiary The plain 
~tory criterion, however, requires that the published material be "about the alien."; 
Further. there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that this publication qualifies as a 
rrofcssional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the rlaeelllent of the article. for 
example. an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County. Virginia. for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
; See Acmrd Negro-FllIIn!," 1'. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8. 20(8) (upholding a finding 
that anicles about a show arc not about the actor). 
The petitioner submitted two newspaper articles entitled 
•••• whieh appear to be from the same page of the same publication. The name and date of the publication 
in which these al1icies appeared was not provided. The articles indicate that beneficiary placed first in the 800 
meter The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the submission 
of "Iplublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media" 
including "the title. date, and author of the material." Track meet results posted in an unidentified newspaper do 
not meet these requirements. 
Finally. the petitioner submitted •••••••••••• published at http://www.iaaf.org and in pamphlet 
form by the IAAF Statistics Office. for the indoor SOO The pet itioncr emphasized that 
the IAAF is the world governing body for track and field. Counsel stated that "these lists only include the top 
peri(xmers in the world in their events." The beneficiary is listed as having achieved _'astest time in the 
800 meters_ "oversized track" as of February 17,2010. The beneficiary al,,) arpears on the IAAF list 
for the 800 meter indoor event. 
_ n a al. the petitioner submits a letter from 
and a member of the Association of Track and Field Statisticians (ATFS). that A TFS 
"is the world's preeminent authority on track and field statistics, and publishes, among other things, compilations 
of yearly best marks in track and field events" which are renected " for indoor and 
outdoor pelt'ormers. _mphasizes that "the IAAFs top lists only contain a fraction of a percent of the 
best performers in each event," while "many of thousands of national international-level performers do not make 
thcse lists each year." He explains that while the IAAF has over 200 member federations worldWIde, athletes 
from only 38 countries appeared on the 200S list, and athletes from only 25 countries appeared on the 2010 list. 
Finally, _ states that the beneficiary was the only Ugandan on the 2010 list. ami one of only two 
Ugandans on the 200S list. 
Upon review, the AAO cannot conclude that the inclusion of the beneficiary's name and top 
_' can be considered published material ahoUl the beneficiary as required hy the plain language 
regulation, even if the petitioner had established that the list itself could be considered major media. 
Based on the foregoing. we uphold the director's finding that the submitted evidence docs not meet the puhlished 
material criterion at 8 C.F.R. * 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
4. Evidence fhat the heneficiary has either commanded (I high salary or )'1'/'/1 cOlll111ond u high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other relluhfc e\'idcl1c(! 
The petitioner submitted two Certificates of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-I) Student, Forms 1-20, showing 
that the beneficiary received full athletic scholarships from South Plains College and LSU. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of "a high salary or other significalllly high remuneration 
for services, ill relathm to others in the lield." In this instance, there is no evidence comparing the dollar amount 
or the petitioner's athletic scholarships to the amounts received by other collegiate runners, Further. there is no 
indication that top runners' rcmuneration is limited to collegiate scholarships rather than paid endorsemellls. prize 
money, or some other form of compensation. The plain language of this criterion requires the petitioner to 
submit evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field" (rather than restricted to those at the 
collegiate level). Nevertheless, the petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that the beneficiary's past 
remuneration was significantly high in relation to others in his field. 
With res!:>ect he,net·;";""",,. proffered compensation, the petitioner submitted a ktter dated March 10, 20 I 0 
from its who states that the beneficiary will "command siglllficant appearance fees for 
track and field competitions in the 800 meters."~rojected that the . 
of $5,000 per competition and opined that "th~te of pay in the field." that 
"because appearance fees are individually negotiated, there are no published studies of track and field athletes' 
earnings 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to submit evidence to meet this criterion, emphasizing that 
"the record does not contain evidence supp0l1ing the assertions of __ " The director noted that the 
lack of relevant salary data or other reliable evidence prohibited a finding that the expected salary of $5,000 
per event is considered a "high salary" within the beneficiary's sport. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that :at(~ment that the Beneficiary'S rate of pay is high should be 
accorded great weight in light and that "[h[is statement that there arc no published studies of 
track and field athletes' earnings should be taken at face value." The an article entitled 
in the June 1992 issue as evidence of. 
The petitioner also submits two invitation letters, addressed to i ;, for the beneficiary to compete in 
the 52"" Annual Mt. Sac Relays and the California Invitational Relays. The oller letters indicate that thl' 
heneficiary has been offered a $5,000 fee for participating in each event. as well as transportation and 
accollllllodat iOIl. 
Upon review, we concur with the director's determination that the evidentiary criterion at X C.F.R. ~ 
214.2(0)(J)(iii)(B)(8) has not been met. While the AAO does not doubt ~xpertise in the sport 
of track and field, or even his knowledge of what constitutes a "high salary" in the ficld, the rcgulations 
clearly require the petitioner'S claim that the beneficiary will receive a high salary to be supported by 
"contracts or other reliable evidence." The regulations do not make an exception for those petitioners who 
can demonstrate their expertise in their field. 
At the time of filing, ;UlI'IIIILLeu a letter dated January 26, 2010 in which he indicated that the 
petitioner had . participation in 14 track events scheduled between February and 
August 20 I O. The petitioner's initial evidence included no contracts he tween the sponsors of these events and 
the beneficiary setting forth the beneficiary'S fee for participation in the event, and __ provided no 
information regarding the beneficiary's negotiated compcnsation. 
In response to the RFE, _ submitted a second letter in which he projccted that the beneficiary will 
earn at least $5,000 per competition. The letter was not accompanied by the "contracts or othcr reliable 
evidence," specifically required by regulation. Further, it is not clear why the heneficiary's anticipated 
participation fee had to be "projected" as of March 2010, given previously indicated that he 
had already negotiated the beneficiary's participation in more than a dozen evenh as of January 2010. A 
person or company in business as an agent, such as the petitioner and file an 0-1 petition, 
but under the circumstances, "a contract between the employers and the beneficiary is required." See 8 C.F.R. 
~ 214.2(0)(2)(iv)(E)(2). 
The petitioner has finally submitted two offer letters from track events in support of the appeal. Both letters 
post-date the denial of the petition, and one letter, California Invitational Relays, is not 
signed. The AAO cannot consider this new evidence as ' that the beneficiary will command 
a "high salary" as of the date the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eli~ibility at the time of 
filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corl' .. 17 I&N Dec. 248 
(Reg. Comm. 1978). 
Finally, we acknowledge the petitioner's and counsel's claim that there arc no "published studies" of track and 
field athletes' earnings. Such claim does not exempt the petitioner from providing some other form of 
corroborating evidcnee in support of its claim that a $5,000 per meet participation fee is a "high salary" for an 
elite track athlete. The regulation simply requires that the petitioner's claims be supported by "reliable 
evidence." The petitioner could have sought other published articles from reputable sources, letters from the 
sponsors of the races in which the beneficiary will PaIlicipate setting forth the range of participation fees paid 
to athletes, a letter from the governing body of the sport attesting to the unavailability of published wage 
information, the opinions of other experts in the field, or any form of other "reliable evidence" to corroborate 
it~ claims. 
this cvide 
opinion that the beneficiary will receive a high salary is simply insufficient to meet 
In light of the circumstances and the regulatory requirl'lllent that the petitioner 
~s claims with "contracts or other reliable evidence," USCIS need .not and will not accept. 
_statement "at face value." Again, going on record without suppOIting documentary evidence IS not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Maller ofSo/fici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
158. 
In this case, \ve concur with the director's determination that the petitioner ha~ failed to dClllon~tratc the 
beneficiary'S receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at kast three of the eight 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). 
III. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next 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 individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir[ field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F.R. * 214.2(0)(3)(ii) and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expenise." See section IOI(a)( 15)(0)(i) of 
the Act. 8 U.s.C. * 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) and 8 C.ER. § 8 C.F.R. § 2142(0)(3)(iii): sec also Kazarian. 2010 WL 
725317 at *3. 
Pagc 16 
In this case, the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already heen addre"cd in 
the preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). With regard to the 
evidence submitted for the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3 )(iii)(B)(1) and the membership criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(2), we acknowledge that the beneficiary achieved the title of "national 
champion" , respectively. The 
beneficiary went on to represent Junior World Championships. These 
achievements meet the plain language of the referenced evidentiary criteria. However. it is unclear whether 
the beneficiary was the senior national champion or the junior national champion in his event. given his age at 
the time he won the Ugandan national track and field hips. The fact that the heneficiary competed 
in __ Junior Championships 
go~esport . 
suggests that the rules of the international 
Further, the statute and regulations require the petitioner to demonstrate that the beneficiary's national or 
international acclaim as a runner has been suszained. See section 101(a)( 15)(0)(i) of the Act: 8 U.s.c. 
1101(a)(15)(0)(i) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). The beneficiary's qualifying achievements in the sport 
occurred . While the petitioner submitted evidence indicating that the beneficiary would 
compete on_ national team'-the evidence of record docs not indicate that he has done so 
in recent years. National awards and team memberships earned by the beneficiary as a teenager more than six 
to eight years prior to the filing of the petition are insufficient to establish the beneficiary's sustained national 
or international acclaim in the support. While the beneficiary undoubtedly competed with succe" at the 
national level in his home country prior to coming to the United States on a student visa, the beneficiary's 
achievements must be compared to all runners, and not only to other junior runners in Uganda. 
While the beneficiary has enjoyed success as a junior college and college athlete, we cannot conclude that 
awards won by him in age-restricted, amateur, junior college, or NCAA Division I collegiate competition 
indicate that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 
g C.F.R. ~ 214.2(0)(3)(ii). There is no indication that the beneficiary, during his time in the United States. has 
faced competition from throughout his field (including professional elite runners). rather than limited to his 
approximate age group within the field. uscrs has long held that even athletes perrormillg at the major league 
level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, :20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Commr. 1994): 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 4 Likewisc, it does not follow that a runner who has had success in 
, While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Moller (1/ 
Racine, 1995 WL 153:119 at *4 (N.D. III. Feb. 16, 1995), the coul1 stated: 
[T[he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play: hut rather. 
Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interprctation is consistent 
with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. III. September 
9. 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set f0l1h in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit and 
discusses the immigrant extraordinary ability classification, rather than the nonimmigrant classificaion, the 
P,,!!e 17 
competition restricted to college students, non-professionals, or others in his immediate age group should 
necessarily qu"lify for "n extraordinary ability nonimmigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the 
regulatory requirement "t 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3 )(ii) that this visa category be reserved for "that sillall percent,,)!e 
of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
The minimal published evidence in the record further supports a finding that the benefici"ry h"s not yet risen 
to the very top of his sport. The beneficiary'S individual and team results in junior COllegiate and collegi"te 
athletic competitions have been reported by local news media. The petitioner has not submitted evidence that 
would set the beneficiary apart from any other successful college athlete, much less place him among thc 
most acclaimed and recognized athletes in all of track and field. While we acknowledge that the henefici"ry 
has made based on his race times, the petitioner 
has not estahlished how SLlch statistical placement has resulted in the beneficiary's sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
The petitioner seeks to qualify the beneficiary for a highly restrictive visa classifie"tion, intcnded for 
individuals alre"dy at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top 
at some unspecified future time. The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. * 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the "ggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the benefici"ry as one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has di,tinguished himself to such an extent that he 
may be s"id to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the ,mall percentage 
at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or internation,,1 level. Accordingly, the "ppeal 
will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO notes that on M"y 26, 20 I 0, subsequent to the director's 
decision in this matter, the AAO entered an administrative finding of willful makriai representation in 
connection with the instant beneficiary'S Form 1-140, Immigmnt Petition for AI ien Worker filed on June 16. 
2009. The beneficiary ,elf-petitioned for an employment-hased immigrant visa under section 203(b)( I )(Al of 
the Act. 
Pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), any alien who by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact. ,ceks 
to procure (ur has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation or admission into the United 
States or other benefit is inadmissible. The regulation "t 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(a)(3)( i) provides that every 
nonimmigrant alien who applies for admission to, or an extension of stay in, the LJnit~d States must establish 
that he or she is admissible to the United States. or that any ground of inadmissibility has been w"ived under 
section 212(d)(3) of the Act. Therefore, even if the petitioner had established the beneficiary's eligibility for 
court's reasoning indicates that USClS' interpretation of the comp"""ble regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(ii) is reasonable. 
Page 18 
the requested nonimmigrant classification, we note that the beneficiary would be ineligible for the requested 
change of status from F-I to 0-1 and extension of stay unless he first obtained the required waiver of the 
grounds of inadmissibility. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. Sec 
Spencer Elllerpriscs. Inc. I'. United Stutes, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025. 1043 (E.D. Cal. 200 I), aft'd. 34'1 F.3d c,x" 
(9'" Cir. 20m); see also Solrune v. Do.l, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with thc 
petitioner. Section 291 orthe Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed