dismissed O-1A Case: Judo

U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandInunigrationServices
ng d BtB C BÍC Ofice ofAdministrativeAppeals,MS2090
pTevent ClCal¶ anwalTanted Washington,DC 20529-2090
invasionofpersonalpnvacy U.S.Citizenship
andImmigration
Services
guc coPlc
FILE: Office:CALIFORNIASERVICECENTER Date: OCT 0 5 2010
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: PetitionforaNonimmigrantWorkerunderSection101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theImmigrationand
NationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefmd thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
any further inquiry that you might haveconcerningyour casemust be madeto that office.
If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideroramotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto the office thatoriginally decidedyour caseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a feeof $585. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbe filed
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
ry Rhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:TheDirector,CaliforniaServiceCenter,deniedthenonimmigrantvisapetition.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitionerfiled this nonimmigrantpetitionseekingto classifythe beneficiaryas an O-1 nonimmigrant
pursuantto section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of the Immigrationand NationalityAct (the Act), as an alien with
extraordinaryabilityinathletics.Thepetitioner,anon-profitsportsclub,seekstoemploythebeneficiaryasajudo
athletefor a periodof threeyears.
Thedirectordeniedthepetition,findingthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiaryhasachieved
sustainednationalor internationalacclaimin hisfield or thatheis oneof thesmallpercentageof athleteswho
haverisentotheverytopof thesportofjudo. Thedirectorfoundthattheevidencesubmittedfailedto satisfythe
criterionset forth at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)or threeof the eight criteriaset forth at 8 C.F.R.§
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).
Thepetitionersubsequentlyfiledanappeal.Thedirectordeclinedtotreattheappealasamotionandforwardedthe
appealto theAAO for review.Onappeal,counselfor thepetitionerassertsthatthedirectorfailedto consider
relevantevidencepertainingto theevidentiarycriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).Specifically,counsel
contendsthatthepetitionersubmittedevidenceto satisfythecriteriaat8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1),(2),(3),
and(7).Counselsubmitsabriefandadditionalevidencein supportoftheappeal.
For the reasonsdiscussedbelow, we concurwith the director'sdeterminationthat the petitionerhasnot
demonstratedthatthebeneficiaryhasthenecessarysustainednationalor internationalacclaimasajudo athlete
or coachto qualify asanalien of extraordinaryability in athletics.
I. TheLaw
Section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i),providesfor theclassificationof a qualified
alienwho:
hasextraordinaryability in the sciences,arts,education,business,or athleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor internationalacclaim. . . andwhoseachievementshave
beenrecognizedin the field throughextensivedocumentation,andseeksto enterthe United
Statesto continuework in the areaof extraordinaryability . . .
Theextraordinaryabilityprovisionsof thisvisaclassificationareintendedto behighlyrestrictiveforaliensinthe
fieldsof business,education,athletics,andthesciences.See59FR41818,41819(August15,1994);137Cong.
Rec.S18242,18247(dailyed.,Nov.26, 1991)(comparinganddiscussingthelowerstandardfor thearts). In a
policymemorandum,thelegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationServiceemphasized:"It mustberememberedthat
thestandardsforO-1aliensinthefieldsof business,education,athletics,andthesciencesareextremelyhigh. The
0-1 classificationshouldbereservedonly for thosealienswho havereachedthe very top of their occupationor
Page3
profession."Memorandum,LawrenceWeinig,ActingAsst.Comm'r.,ImmigrationandNaturalizationService,
"PolicyGuidelinesfortheAdjudicationof OandPPetitions"(June25,1992).
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(ii)defines,inpertinentpart:
Extraordinaryability in thefield of science,education,business,or athleticsmeansa level of
expertiseindicatingthatthepersonisoneof thesmallpercentagewhohavearisentotheverytop
ofthefieldofendeavor.
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)states,inpertinentpart:
Evidentiarycriteriafor an O-1alienof extraordinaryability in thefields of science,education,
businessor athletics. An alienof extraordinaryability in the fields of science,education,
business,or athleticsmust demonstratesustainednationalor internationalacclaimand
recognitionforachievementsinthefieldofexpertisebyprovidingevidenceof:
(A) Receiptofamajor,internationallyrecognizedaward,suchastheNobelPrize;or
(B) At leastthreeofthefollowingformsof documentation:
(1) Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof nationallyor internationallyrecognized
prizesorawardsforexcellenceinthefieldofendeavor;
(2) Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for which
classificationis sought,which requireoutstandingachievementsof their
members,asjudgedbyrecognizedor internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesor
fields;
(3) Publishedmaterialin professionalor majortradepublicationsor majormedia
aboutthealien,relatingtothealien'sworkinthefieldforwhichclassificationis
sought,whichshallincludethetitle,date,andauthorof suchpublishedmaterial,
andanynecessarytranslation;
(4) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipationonapanel,or individuallyasajudgeof the
workof othersin thesameorin analliedfieldof specializationtothatfor which
classificationissought;
(3) Evidenceof the alien's original scientific,scholarly,or business-related
contributionsof majorsignificanceinthefield;
Page4
(6) Evidenceof the alien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticles in the field, in
professionaljournals,orothermajormedia;
(7) Evidencethatthealienhasbeenemployedin a criticalor essentialcapacityfor
organizationsandestablishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
(8) Evidencethatalienhaseithercommandedahighsalaryorwill commandahigh
salaryorotherremunerationforservices,evidencedbycontractsorotherreliable
evidence.
(C) If the criteria in paragraph(o)(3)(iii) of this sectiondo not readilyapply to the
beneficiary'soccupation,the petitionermaysubmitcomparableevidencein orderto
establishthebeneficiary'seligibility.
Thedecisionof U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)in a particularcaseis dependentuponthe
qualityof theevidencesubmittedbythepetitioner,notjustthequantityof theevidence.Themerefactthatthe
petitionerhassubmittedevidencerelatingto threeof the criteriaas requiredby the regulationdoesnot
necessarilyestablishthatthealieniseligiblefor O-1classification.59FedRegat41820.
Indeterminingthebeneficiary'seligibilityunderthesecriteria,theAAO will followatwo-partapproachsetforth
in a 2010decisionissuedby theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinth Circuit.Kazarianv. USCIS,2010WL
725317(9* Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulationsgoverningthis nonimmigrantclassification,the
regulationsreviewedbytheKazariancourtrequirethepetitionerto submitevidencepertainingto at leastthreeout
of ten alternativecriteria in orderto establisha beneficiary'seligibility asanalienwith extraordinaryability. Cf 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
Specifically,theKazariancourtstatedthat"theproperprocedureistocountthetypesof evidenceprovided(which
the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence,"the proper conclusion is that the
applicanthasfailedto satisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Id
at *6 (citingto 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"finalmeritsdetermination"asthecorollary
tothisprocedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedthe requisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe evidence
demonstratesboth a "level of expertiseindicatingthat the individualis one of that small
percentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir]field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),
and"thatthealienhassustainednationalorinternationalacclaimandthathisorherachievements
havebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise."8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhose
achievementshavegarnered"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"areeligiblefor an
"extraordinaryability"visa.8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id. at *3.
Page5
Thus,Kazariansetsforthatwo-partapproachwheretheevidenceisfirstcountedandthen,if qualifyingunderat
leastthreecriteria,consideredin the contextof a final meritsdetermination.Thefinal meritsdetermination
analyzeswhethertheevidenceis consistentwiththestatutoryrequirementof "extensivedocumentation"andthe
regulatorydefinitionof "extraordinaryability"as"oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof
thefieldofendeavor."
TheAAO findstheKazariancourt'stwo-partapproachto beappropriateforevaluatingtheregulatorycriteriaset
forthfor O-1nonimmigrantpetitionsfor aliensof extraordinaryabilityat8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii),(iv) and(v).
Therefore,in reviewingServiceCenterdecisions,theAAO will applythetestsetforthin Kazarian.AstheAAO
maintainsdenovoreview,theAAO will conducta newanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisor herconclusionby
usingaone-stepanalysisratherthanthetwo-stepanalysisdictatedbytheKazariancourt.SeeSoltanev.DOJ,381
F.3d143,145(3dCir.2004)(notingthattheAAOreviewsappealsonadenovobasis).
Inthepresentmatter,thepetitionerhassubmittedevidencepertainingtofiveoftheevidentiarycriteria,buthasnot
establishedthat the beneficiaryhasrisento the very top of his field or that he hassustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandrecognition.8C.F.R.§§214.2(o)(3)(ii)and(iii).
II. Analysis
Therecordconsistsof apetitionwith supportingdocumentation,arequestfor additionalevidence(RFE)andthe
petitioner'sreply,thedirector'sdecision,anappealandbrief,andadditionalevidencesupportingtheappeal.The
beneficiaryin thiscaseis a26-year-oldnativeandcitizenof Armenia.Therecordshowsthatthebeneficiary
hascompetedin nationaland internationalJudocompetitionssince1996. Accordingto the beneficiary's
resume,his coachingexperienceincludesemploymentas a trainerat the YerevanSpecializedSchoolof
OlympicReserveof JudoandSamboof ArmeniaRegionalUnion,andexperienceasanassistantcoachonthe
ArmenianJudoNationalTeamandArmenianJudoOlympicTeam. Thepetitionerreliesprimarilyon the
beneficiary'sachievementsasacompetitiveathleteto establishthebeneficiary'seligibility.
Thepetitionerseeksto hirethebeneficiaryasa Judoathlete.Counselstatedin herletterdatedFebruary24,
2009thatit seeksto employhim "to competeonbehalfof theClubandto performanddemonstratefor all the
membersandalsoto workwith therestof theJudoprofessionalsattheClubdevelopinga curriculumthatis
recognizednationalandinternationally."Whileit appearsthatthebeneficiarywouldserveasbothathleteand
trainerfor thepetitioningorganization,theAAO is satisfiedthatthe beneficiarywill "continuework in the
areaof extraordinaryability."Section101(a)(15)(O)(i)oftheAct,8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i)
Giventhenexusbetweenathleticcompetitionandcoachingor sportsinstruction,in a casewhereanalienhas
clearlyachievednationalor internationalacclaimasanathleteandhassustainedthatacclaimin thefield of
coachingat a nationalor internationallevel, an adjudicatormay considerthe totality of the evidenceas
establishinganoverallpatternof sustainedacclaimandextraordinaryabilitysuchthatit canbeconcludedthat
coachingortrainingiswithinthebeneficiary'sareaofexpertise.
Page6
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
At theoutset,it is criticalto reiteratethatsimplysubmittingevidenceto satisfytheevidentiarycriteriawill not
automaticallyestablisheligibility for this visaclassification.Themerefactthatthepetitionerhassubmitted
evidencerelatingto threeof thecriteriaasrequiredby theregulationdoesnotnecessarilyestablishthatthe
alieniseligiblefor 0-1 classification.59FedReg.41818,41820(August15,1994).
If thepetitionerestablishesthroughthesubmissionof documentaryevidencethatthebeneficiaryhasreceiveda
major,internationallyrecognizedawardpursuantto 8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A),thenit will meetitsburdenof
proofwith respectto thebeneficiary'seligibilityfor O-1classification.Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimthatthe
beneficiaryqualifiesfor0-1 classificationonthebasisof hisreceiptof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.
Accordingly,thepetitionermustestablishthebeneficiary'seligibilityunderatleastthreeof theeightcriteriaset
forthat 8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).Thepetitionerhasindicatedthatthebeneficiarymeetsthecriteriaat 8
C.F.R.§§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1),(2),(3),(4)and(7),andsubmitsdocumentationrelevanttothesecriteriaonly. As
such,theremainingthreecriteriawill notbeaddressedinthisdecision.
Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizes
or awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor
To meetcriterionnumberone,thepetitionermustsubmitdocumentationof thealien'sreceiptof nationallyor
intemationallyrecognizedprizes or awards for excellencein the field of endeavor.8 C.F.R.
§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1).
Thepetitionerindicatesthatthebeneficiarycanmeetthiscriterionbasedonthefollowingawards:
• 73kgweightclass
• , 66kgweightclass
The petitionersubmittedsupportingdocumentaryevidencein the form of official entryrequirementsfrom the
sponsoringorganizationsof theseeventsaswell aspublishedarticlesto establishthesignificanceof theevents
within thesport.Thedirectordeterminedthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterion.
TheAAO concurswith thedirectorthatthesubmittedevidencesatisfiestheplainlanguageof thisevidentiary
criterion. Thepetitionerhasdemonstratedthattheabove-referencedcompetitionsareconsiderednationallyor
internationally-recognizedeventswithinthesportofJudo.
Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefieldfor whichclassgication
issought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers,asjudgedbyrecognized
or internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesorfields
Page7
In orderto establishthatthe beneficiarymeetsthe secondcriterion,at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2),the
petitionermustdocumentthealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for whichclassificationis sought,
which requireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers,asjudgedby recognizednationalor international
expertsintheirdisciplinesorfields.
Thepetitionersubmitteda letterdatedJuly 12,2007anda certificatedatedNovember6, 2008fromthe
! hichindicatethatthebeneficiaryisamemberofthe The
petitioneralsosubmittedaletterfromtb whichindicatesthatthebeneficiarywasan
assistantcoachof the , andassistantcoachof the
In responsetotheRFE,thepetitionersubmittedadditionalevidencerelatedto
thecriteriafor selectionof membersof thenationalteam,notingthatmembersarechosenbytl |
thenationalgoverningbodyof thesport.Ina letterdatedApril 14,2009,
the stated:
In Armenianjudo federationtheselectionof theathletefor thenationalteamis basedonthe
resultsof theArmenianchampionships,Armeniancupsandthe internationalchampionships.
[Thebeneficiary]isthememberoftheArmenianJudoFederationfrom2005.[Thebeneficiary]
is the memberof andhe is the memberof the
Both are [sic] consistsof
36members.
The directorfoundthatthe submittedevidencemeetsthis criterionandthe AAO concurs.Specifically,the
beneficiarymeetsthis criterion basedon his selectionfor Armenia'snationalteamby the nationalgoverningbody
inhissport,whichcanbeconsideredarecognizednationalexpertinthediscipline.
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media abut the
alien,relatingto thealien'sworkin thefieldfor whichclassificationis sought
To meet the third criterion, the petitionermust submit publishedmaterial in professionalor major trade
publicationsor majormediaaboutthealien,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis
sought,whichshallincludethetitle,date,andauthorof suchpublishedmaterial,andanynecessarytranslation.8
C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3).
Tomeetthiscriterion,thepetitionerinitiallysubmittedthefollowing:
• Theresultsof aYahooInternetsearchforthebeneficiary
• An advertisementfor designedandendorsedby Olympianand
WorldChampio whichappearedinthe
Page8
Theadvertisementconsistsof aphotographinwhich isthrowing
thebeneficiary.
• An articletitled which
was published on the website of
on September27,2008. Thearticleincludesanaccountof
thebeneficiary'slosst inthe73kgdivisiongoldmedalround.
• An article titled "From Rotterdamto Prague,then Back to Yerevan"which was
publishedontheArmeniannewswebsite"A1+"(http://www.alplus.am)onSeptember
25,2007. Thearticlementionsthatthe beneficiarywasamongthemembersof the
• Excerptsfrom the September1997issueof SportEurope,the EuropeanOlympic
Committee'sofficial magazine.Themagazineincludesan articleon the European
YouthOlympicDayscompetitionheldin Lisbon,Portugal,anda photographof the
young athletesbearingthe flags of their countries.The petitioneridentifiesthe
beneficiaryonthephotograp Themagazinealsoreports
theresultsof theJudocompetitionandidentifiesthebeneficiaryasth
In an RFEissuedon March5, 2009,the directoracknowledgedthe initial evidencesubmittedto meetthis
criterion.Thedirectornotedthatit appearsthatUSAJudopublishestheresultsof all eventsit sanctionsandfound
thesubmittedarticledoesnotsatisfytherequirementthatthepetitionersubmitpublishedmaterialfroma major
tradepublicationor othermajormediaaboutthe alien. The directorfurthernotedthat the "article"from
andcould not bedeemedan article about
thebeneficiary.
Thedirectorrequestedthatthepetitionersubmitarticlesthathavebeenwrittendirectlyaboutthebeneficiary,and
instructedthepetitionerto provideevidenceof thecirculationof eachpublication.
In aresponsedatedApril 14,2009,counselforthepetitionerfurtheraddressedthephotographof thebeneficiary
thatappearedinSportEurope,noting:
In 1997,asoneof the bestyouthathletesin Armenia,[thebeneficiary]wasselectedasthe
heldin Lisbon,Portugalandweconsiderthisagreathonorandrecognitionfor [thebeneficiary]
asajudoathleteandweareprovidingadditionalevidencetosupportthisclaim.
ThepetitionersubmittedpublishedthreepublishedarticlesrelatingtoCanadianandAmericanathletesselectedfor
andinformationregardingtheselectioncriteriausedbytheU.S.
and CanadianOlympicteams. Counselemphasizedthat the beneficiary'sselection "is an
internationallyrecognizedgreathonor and publicityfor him as an athlete." Counselassertedthat "[the
Page9
beneficiary's]nameandpictureandhiscompetitionresultspublishedin [SportEurope]providesstrongsupportfor
hisclaimunderthepublicitycriterion."
Thepetitioneralsosubmittednewevidencepertainingto articlesregardingthebeneficiarythathaveappearedin
the followingArmenianpublications:Azg (Nation),describedas a majornationaldaily newspaperwith a
circulationof 4,000;MarzakanHayastan(SportsArmenia),describedasa nationalnewsdailywith a focuson
domesticsportsnews;MarzAshxar(SportsWorld),describedasa nationalsportsweeklynewpaperfocusingon
internationalsportscompetitions;andHayZinvor(ArmenianSoldier),anationalweeklynewspaperpublishedby
theMinistryof Defensewithacirculationof 10,000.
To establishthatthe articlesrepresentpublishedmaterialin majormedia,the petitionersubmittedan article
regardingtheArmenianpressfromthewebsitewww.pressreference.com.ThearticleidentifiesAzgasthesecond
largestdailypaperinthecountryandHayZinvorasamongthelargestnon-dailypublications.Thearticleindicates
that"majorpaperscirculatebetween2,000and6,000copies"andthatmanypapersin Armeniahavecirculations
in only the hundreds.The articlefurtherindicatesthat only five percentof the populationregularlyreads
newspapers.
Thepetitionersubmittedwhatappearstobeapartialtranslationof anarticletitled
publishedin the . Thearticleincludesa photographdepictingthe beneficiary
wearingamedalandappearsto beaninterviewwithhiscoachdiscussingthebeneficiary'smatchesleadingto his
;ompetition.Thecoachisquotedasstatingthatthebeneficiary
andhisbrothersare"hopeofArmeniainthefuturebigchampionships."
The petitioneralsosubmittedan articlefrom the
newspaper,titled Thearticleindicatesthatthebeneficiaryandhisbrothersbegan
trainingin Judoin 1992,havebeencompetingsince1994,andhavereceivedmanyfirst,secondandthirdplace
finishes,includingfirstprizeatthe Thearticlegoes
ontodiscusstheroleofthebeneficiary'sfather2 Inaddition,thearticlementionsthat
thebeneficiaryandoneof hisbrothers,asmembersof theArmeniannationalyouthcombinedteam,will qualify
fortheFrenchTatami,andif successful,competeintheEuropeanYouthOlympicDaysin Portugalin 1997.
A secondarticletitled wassubmittedfromtheMssue o
The article includesan interview witl1 and
mentionsthebeneficiary'sparticipationin theupcoming"worldyouthfulgames"in The
articlementionsthatthebeneficiary'ssecondplacewin at the 'is
consideredto bethebestsuccesswithinthetenyearsin thefield of Judo." ThearticleaddressestheArmenian
judo team's lack of international competition experienceand their attemptsto compensatethrough rigorous
trainingin Armenia.
Thepetitioneralsosubmittedanarticletitled whichappearedin the
dition of6newspaper. Thearticlementionsthebeneficiary'ssilver medalat
Page10
the against30competitorsin hisweightcategory,aswellashis
teammate's atthisevent.Thearticlestates"letthischampionshipwill befirststepto
Thefinalnewspaperarticlesubmittedwasanarticletitled whichappearedin
the ditiono Thearticlereportstheresultsof Armenian
soldierscompetingin andnotesthatthebeneficiarywona
losinghisfinalmatchto amoreexperience! medalist.Thearticlealso
reportstheresultsof two otherArmeniansoldierswhowongoldandsilvermedalsin theirweightcategoriesat
this event.
Thedirectordeterminedthattheabove-referencedevidenceof publishedmaterialsaboutthebeneficiarydoesnot
meetthecriterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3).Thedirectorfoundthatalthoughsomeof thepublished
articlesappearedin "majormedia,"thearticlesasawholefailedto establishthatthebeneficiaryhasachievedthe
requiredsustainedacclaiminthesportconsistentwithextraordinaryability.
As notedabove,in conductinga denovoreviewof therecord,we will applythetwo-partanalysissetforthin
Kazarianin evaluatingthe petitioner'sevidenceunderthe evidentiarycriterion. If the petitionersubmits
publishedmaterialin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormediaaboutthe alien,we will
concludethattheevidencesatisfiestheplainlanguageof thiscriterion.Wewill thenanalyzein thefinal merits
determinationwhethertheevidenceis consistentwiththestatutoryrequirementof "extensivedocumentation"and
theregulatorydefinitionof "extraordinaryability"as"oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytop
of thefieldof endeavor."
Accordingly,wefindthatthepetitionermeetsthiscriterionbasedonthesubmittedarticlesfromthenewspapers
whichdespitetheirverylow circulationfigures,havebeendemonstratedto be "major"
newspapersin Armenia. Thepetitionerhasnot providedcirculationfiguresor any otherbasisto supporta
conclusionthat the two other newspapersin which articlesaboutthe beneficiarywere publishedare considered
"majormedia"in Armenia. TheAAO alsofindsthattheappearanceof thebeneficiary'snameandphotographin
the doesnotriseto thelevelof anarticleaboutthebeneficiary.Themagazine
presumablyreportedthenamesandnationalitiesof all medalwinnersatthe
competition.The article supportsthe petitioner'sclaim that the beneficiary'smedalat this eventis an
internationally-recognizedprizeoraward.WhiletheAAOdoesnotminimizethesignificanceofthebeneficiary's
selection fortheyouthnationalteamatthisevent,wecannotoverlookthathewasnot
identifiedby namein acaptionto thephotograph,andthephotographwasnotabouthisselectionforthishonor,
butmerelyaphotographoftheevent'sopeningceremony.
Finally,theAAO notesthatwhiletheresultsof thebeneficiary'smatcheshavebeenreportedonvariousInternet
sitesdedicateto Judoor sportsin general,merementionsof thebeneficiary'snamein printortournamentresults
cannotbeconsideredarticlesaboutthebeneficiary.
Page11
Evidenceof the alien'sparticipationon a panel,or individuallyasajudge of the workof
othersin thesameor in an alliedfield of specializationto thatfor whichclassificationis
sought
At the time of filing, the petitionerstatedthat the beneficiarymeetsthis criterion,at 8 C.F.R §
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4),basedon his positionsas for the and as
forthe
In the RFEissuedon March5, 2009,the directoradvisedthat in an occupationsuchascoaching,where
"judging"theworkof othersis aninherentdutyof theoccupation,simplyperformingone'sjob-relatedduties
is notsufficientto meetthiscriterion.Specifically,thedirectornotedthatthepetitionermustdemonstratethat
the beneficiarywas chosento judge the work of otherson a nationalor internationallevel basedon his
sustainednationalor internationalacclaimin thefield. Thedirectorrequestedevidencethatthebeneficiary
hasjudgedtheworkof othersin thesportoutsideof coachingforanevent,competitionorcontest.
In responseto theRFE,thepetitionerdid notspecificallyaddressthis criterion. However,thepetitionerdid
submitin supportof the criterionat 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7),a letterfrom the presidentof the
ArmenianJudoFederationindicatingthatthebeneficiaryis a "republicanrefereelicenseholder"since2004,
andthathepassedanexaminationin orderto receivethisqualifications.Theletterindicatesthatbetween2004
and2006,thebeneficiary"participatedin theArmenianchampionshipsof cadetsandjuniorsandin 'Zeytun
Cup" Internationaltournamentsasareferee."
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerdidnotsubmitevidenceto meetthiscriterion.Thedirectorreferred
to thepetitioner'sinitial claimsthatthebeneficiary'scoachingexperiencequalifies,anddismissedtheseclaims
for thereasonsstatedin theRFE. However,uponreviewof theevidence,theAAO findsthatthebeneficiary's
experienceasa refereesatisfiestheplainlanguageof this regulatorycriterion. Theweightto begivento the
beneficiary'srefereequalificationswill beconsideredbelowin ourfinal meritsdetermination.
Evidencethat the alien has beenemployedin a critical or essentialcapacityfor organizations
andestablishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation
The petitionerdid not indicateatthetime of filing that it wassubmittingevidenceto meetthecriterion at 8 C.F.R.
§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7).In responsetotheRFE,counselforthepetitionerstatedthat"theArmeniaNationalJudo
TeamandArmenianNationalOlympicTeamarewellestablishedandhighlyrespectedgroupsin theworldjudo
communitydueto theiractiveparticipationsin worldchampionshipsaswell astheOlympicGames."Counsel
statedthatthebeneficiary's"highstandingin theworldJudocommunitysignificantlypromotestheimageand
reputationof theArmenianteamsandhiscountryin theworld." Counselnotedthatthebeneficiary
andthatheplayeda criticalrole
forhiscountryby
Page12
Counselfurtherstatedthatthe beneficiary'srole asmemberand
is in a criticalor essentialcapacity,ashewastheonlyplayerselectedto assistthenationalhead
coachin evaluatingandtrainingfellowteammembers.Counselnotedthat
.Finally,counselemphasizedthatthebeneficiary'snationalJudorefereelicenseis "another
testamenttohiscriticalrolesinbothteamsandhishighstandinginthefieldofJudoinArmenia."
The directordeterminedthat the petitionerdid not meetthis criterion.The directoracknowledgedthe
distinguishedreputationofthe notedthat"thebeneficiary
isamemberof alargerteam,witheveryone'scontributionsequallyasimportantasthenextpersons."Thedirector
foundthatevidenceinsufficientto establishthatthebeneficiary'semploymentwith eitherteamhasbeenin a
criticalor essentialcapacity.Thedirectorfurtherfoundthatthebeneficiary'sroleasanassistantcoachmustbe
consideredtobeinasupportingcapacity.
Onappeal,counselmaintainsthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterionbasedonhisroleasan with
the . Counselclaimsthatthebeneficiarywasnot
but rather,"enhancedthereputationof judo in Armenia." The
petitionersubmitsanewletterfrom whoconfirmsthat
thebeneficiary"wasemployedin criticalor essentialcapacityas
andthenthe
rtherstates:
[Thebeneficiary]is not an ordinary Firstof all, he is an internationally
recognizedprofessionaljudo athletecompetingaroundthe world and he has firsthand
knowledgeandexperiencein individualtrainingandcompetitions.Secondly,hewastrainedand
certifiedbytheInternationalOlympicCommittee(IOC)for OlympicSolidaritytechnicalcourse
for coachesin Judoin 2007.IOC is theumbrellaorganizationandsupremeauthorityof the
OlympicGamestheworld. Itsmembershipconsistsof the205NationalOlympicCommittees.
Itscertificationis universallyrecognized.WithTOCtrainingandcertification,[thebeneficiary]
is authorizedto train othersby Olympicstandardsandrequirements.And, thirdly, he is a
licensedJudoRefereeinArmenia.
Withalltheseexperiencesandqualifications,[thebeneficiary]wasabletocontributemuchmore
significantly to our teamthan an individual coach,an athlete,or a referee. He usedhis unique
combinationof experienceandknowledgein almosteveryaspectof thesportto trainhimself
andto trainhisteammates.HeworkedcloselywiththeHeadCoachto developtrainingplans
andgamestrategiesfor otherathletesandheparticipatedin thetrainingof othersin testingand
enforcingtheseplansandstrategies.Hisrolewasabsolutelycriticalin maintainingourteam's
competitivelevelforinternationalevents.
Page13
Uponreview,theAAO concurswith thedirector'sdeterminationthatthebeneficiary'smembershipand
cannotbeconsideredemploymentin
acriticaloressentialcapacitywiththeseteams.
TheAAO doesnotquestionthatthe teamsenjoya distinguished
reputation.Membershipin andcoachingexperiencewith a is evidenceof adegree
of recognition,asnotedabove.However,whilethebeneficiaryhasbeenableto providecoachingexpertiseto his
fellow athletesin a mannerthatis notexpectedof theaverageathlete,thereis noevidencethathisroleasan
assistantcoachor "playercoach"wascriticalor essentialfor This subordinaterole is
designedto provideassistanceto a headcoachor othermoreseniorcoach. Thepetitioner'sevidencedoesnot
demonstratehowthebeneficiary'sroledifferentiatedhimfromothercoaches.Giventhatthepetitionerisclaiming
thatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterionbasedonhis experienceasa coach,it is reasonableto comparehimto
othercoaches,ratherthanto otherathletes,in thisregard. Thedocumentationsubmittedbythepetitionerdoes
notestablishwhetherorhowthebeneficiarywasresponsibleforthesuccessorstandingofthe
to adegreeconsistentwiththemeaningof "essentialorcriticalrole."
In light of theforegoing,thepetitionerhassubmittedevidencethatsatisfiestheplainlanguageof four of the
evidentiarycriteriaat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).
B. Final Merits Determination
In accordancewiththeKazarianopinion,wemustnextconductafinalmeritsdeterminationthatconsidersall of
theevidenceinthecontextof whetherornotthepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1)thatthebeneficiaryhasachieved
a levelof expertiseindicatingthatheisoneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopofthefieldof
endeavorpursuantto 8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(ii);and(2)thatthebeneficiaryhassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthat his achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise,pursuantto 8 C.F.R.§
214.2(o)(3)(iii)andsection101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i).SeeKazarian,2010WL
725317at*3.
Thepetitionerhassubmitteddocumentationthatreflectsthebeneficiary'sreceiptof atotalof threenationallyor
internationallyrecognizedawardsasaJudoathlete.Whilesuchawardsmeettheplainlanguageof theregulation
at8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1),areviewof thebeneficiary'scompetitionrecordasawholedoesnotestablish
thathehasconsistentlywonsuchawardsin apatterncommensuratewith sustainedacclaim.Thebeneficiarywon
anc Whiletheseawardsare
undoubtedlyimpressiveachievements,thefactremainsthatthepetitionerhasprovidedevidenceof only three
qualifyingawardsreceivedoveranathleticcareerspanning12years,andonlyoneawardattheseniorlevelofthe
sport.Althoughthe is a seniorelite eventwhich drawstop international
competitors,it is describedin thesubmittedmaterialsasa "SeniorB-Level"tournament,andtheweightto be
givento thisawardis lessthanthatto begivento anA orA+ leveltournamentsuchasa WorldCupor World
Championshipevent.
Page14
TheAAO notesthatthebeneficiary'sresumeindicatesthatheachieved
However,therecordcontainsnoprimary
evidenceof thebeneficiary'sreceiptof suchawards,andthepetitionerdoesnotclaimeligibilityunderthefirst
criterionbasedon theseawards. Thepetitionerhassubmittedevidenceof the beneficiary'sparticipationin
nationalandinternationaleventssuchastheJuniorEuropeanChampionship,18-22(1998),the2000JuniorJudo
WorldChampionships,theEuropeanChampionshipunder20,(2001),the2003WorldJudoChampionships,the
EuropeanJudoUnion2006WorldCup,amongothers,butthebeneficiarydidnotreceiveawardsatanyof these
events.Thepetitioneralsoindicatesthat,whilethebeneficiaryis a memberof the he
Thebeneficiaryhasundoubtedlycompetedwith somesuccessatthenationalandinternationallevels.However,
thebeneficiary'sachievementsmustbecomparedto all Judoathletescompetingin thesport. In weighingthe
meritsof thebeneficiary'snationalandinternationalchampionships,theAAO musttakeintoaccountthatsomeof
thebeneficiary'scompetitivesuccesshasbeenatpre-seniorlevelsof thesport.TheAAO wouldexpectanathlete
attheverytopof hissportto becompetingsuccessfullyin high-profileeventsatthehighestcompetitivelevelof
thesportoveraperiodoftime.Theregulationsrequirethepetitionerto demonstrate"sustained"acclaim.8C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii).Thebeneficiary'sreceiptof
consideredwith - - "!nternationalcompetition,is
insufficienttoestablishthebeneficiary'splacementinthetopechelonof athletesinthesport.
With respectto the criterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3),the AAO notesthat,while the petitioner
submittedtwo articlesfrompublicationsthatcouldbeconsidered"major"newspapersin Armenia,thearticles
werepublishedin 1997and2008andalsofail to establishapatternof sustainednationalor internationalacclaim
consistentwith anathletewhois attheverytopof thefieldandtherequirementthatthepetitionerestablishthe
beneficiary'seligibilitythroughsubmissionof "extensiveevidence."It isreasonabletoexpectthatanathleteatthe
verytopof anOlympicsportsuchasJudowouldgarnermoreconsistentandwidespreadattentionin thesports
media.The beneficiaryhasnot beenfeaturedin anyotherqualifyingpublications,and,while the petitioner
submitted results of an Internet searchfor the beneficiary, the results included only competition results rather than
anyspecificarticlesaboutthebeneficiaryandhisachievementsinthesport.
Withrespecttothecriterionat8C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7),theAAO acknowledgesthatthebeneficiary,asa
licensedJudorefereein Armenia,hasrefereedat"theArmenianchampionshipsandjuniors"andin the"Zeytun
Cup"internationaltournament.TheAAO notesthatthebeneficiarybecamea refereeby "participatingin the
refereeingexamination"andnotbyvirtueof hisachievementsorreputationin thesport. Thepetitionerhasnot
providedtheArmenianJudoFederation'scriteriafor licensingrefereesandhasnotestablishedthatparticipationin
therefereeingexaminationis limitedto onlythosewhoareatthetopof thesportasathleticcompetitors.Further,
thebeneficiary'srefereeingof junior andcadet-levelJudoathletes,evenat thenationallevel,is insufficientto
establishtherequisitesustainednationalorinternationalacclaim.
IH. Conclusion
Page15
Theconclusionwereachbyconsideringeachevidentiarycriterionseparatelyis consistentwith areviewof the
evidencein theaggregate.Evenin theaggregate,theevidencedoesnotdistinguishthebeneficiaryasoneof
thesmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(ii).The
petitionerreliesmainly on the beneficiary'sthreenationaland internationalcompetitionawardsand his
membershipon to establishhis eligibility. However,giventhe lengthof the
beneficiary'scareerasa competitiveathlete,his successin nationallyandinternationally-recognizedeventshas
beenrelativelylimited,withonlythreemajorawardswonbetween1997and2008.
The petitionersubmittedfor the recorda biographyfor the beneficiary'srecentopponent, who
defeatedthe beneficiaryto win the gold medal in the career
highlightsincludemorethan40gold,silverandbronzeawardsin nationalandinternationalcompetitionsearned
since1999.Whilethebeneficiaryclearlypossessestheathletictalentto competeagainstanaccomplishedathlete
suchas is indicatedbyhisreceiptof thesilvermedalin thisevent,it appearsthatthehighestlevelof
achievementinthebeneficiary'sfieldissubstantiallyabovethelevelhehascurrentlyattained.
Theextraordinaryabilityprovisionsof thisvisaclassificationareintendedto behighlyrestrictive.See137Cong.
Rec.S18247(dailyed.,Nov. 16,1991).In orderto establisheligibilityfor O-1classification,thepetitionermust
establishthatthe beneficiaryis "at the very top" of his field of endeavor.8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii).The
beneficiary'sachievementshavenotyet risento this level. Reviewof the recorddoesnot establishthatthe
beneficiaryhasdistinguishedhimselfto suchanextentthathemaybesaidto haveachievedsustainednational
or internationalacclaimor to be within the smallpercentageat the very top of his field. Therefore,the
petitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuantto section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theActandthepetitionmaynotbe
approved.
This denialdoesnot precludethe petitionerfrom filing a new immigrantor nonimmigrantvisa petition,
supportedby therequiredevidence.As always,theburdenremainswith thepetitionerto establisheligibility
for the requestedvisa classification.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct,
8U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.