dismissed O-1A Case: Martial Arts

identifYing ::lata ie/Pl-,'" 
prev~nt clearly unwarr:'.I1l, 
blvasion of petsonaj priv41C) 
t'lJBUC COP} 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U,S, Citizenship and Innnigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SEP 3 0 2010 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101 (a)(15)(O)(i) 
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 matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
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 
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. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
erry Rhew 
Chief, A,dministrative Appeals Office 
www.useis.gov 
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 the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classifY the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant 
pursuant to section lOI(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner, a martial arts school, seeks to employ the beneficiary as an 
assistant instructor for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim in his field or that he is one of the small percentage of athletes who 
have risen to the very top of the sport of taekwondo. The director found that the evidence submitted failed to 
satisfY the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A) or 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 for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director improperly imposed 
evidentiary standards that are not included in the regulations, which caused her to reject or give improper weight to 
the petitioner's evidence. Counsel further contends that the director applied a higher evidentiary standard than the 
preponderance of the evidence standard, and substituted her limited knowledge of the sport for the opinions of 
experts in the field, whose testimonial letters were not mentioned in the decision 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 
requests that the petition be approved. Counsel submits a brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal. 
For the reasons discussed below, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the beneficiary has the necessary sustained national or international acclaim as a taekwondo 
athlete to qualifY as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
I. The Law 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), provides for the classification of a qualified 
alien who: 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim . . . and whose achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the United 
States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability ., .. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive for aliens in the 
fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences. See 59 FR 41818,41819 (August 15, 1994); l37 Congo 
Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and discussing the lower standard for the arts). In a 
policy memorandum, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service emphasized: "It must be remembered that 
Page 3 
the standards for 0-1 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 have reached the very top of their occupation or 
profession." Memorandum, Lawrence Weinig, Acting Asst. Comm'r., Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
"Policy Guidelines for the Adjudication of 0 and P Petitions" (June 25, 1992). 
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(1) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized or international experts 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 articles in the field, m 
professional journals, 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; 
(8) 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. 
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 establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary'S eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach set forth 
in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 _ 
_ (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant classification, the 
regulations reviewed by the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three out 
often alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. Cj 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, the Kazarian court stated that "the proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which 
the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the 
applicant has failed to satisfY the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id 
at *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "fmal merits determination" as the corollary 
to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both 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. § 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 expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose 
achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an 
"extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part 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 final merits determination 
analyzes whether the evidence is consistent with the statutory requirement of "extensive documentation" and the 
regulatory defmition of "extraordinary ability" as "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor." 
The AAO finds the Kazarian court's two-part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set 
forth 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 forth in Kazarian. As the AAO 
maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by 
using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Sollane v. DOJ, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to five of the evidentiary criteria, but has not 
established that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of his field or that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(0)(3)(ii) and (iii). 
II. Analysis 
The record consists of a petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional evidence ("RFE") and the 
petitioner's reply, the director's decision, an appeal and brief, and additional evidence supporting the appeal. The 
beneficiary in this case is a 25-year-old native and citizen of Nigeria. The beneficiary holds a 
belt in _ The petitioner indicates that the has 
since 1993. The beneficiary'S resume includes a 
other achievements listed in the beneficiary's resume appear to be club-based awards the beneficiary received 
between 1993 and 1996 when he was nine to twelve years old. The beneficiary earned his first _ in 
2000 and his second _in 2004. 
As a preliminary matter, the AAO will address counsel's argument on appeal that the director should have 
issued a second request for evidence or a notice of intent to deny before adjudicating the petition. Counsel 
notes that in the RFE issued on December 21, 2009, the director identified the beneficiary'S field of 
extraordinary ability as As such, counsel claims 
that the issue of the beneficiary'S extraordinary ability as a was not raised, and the 
petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to address the director's doubts regarding the significance of the 
evidence relating to the beneficiary'S extraordinary ability in_ competition. 
Counsel's assertions are not persuasive. Although the director referred to the beneficiary'S field of 
extraordinary ability as _ instruction in the RFE, the petitioner submitted evidence to clarify that the 
Page 6 
beneficiary's field should be considered _ and not merely coaching.! All evidence submitted in 
response to the RFE was submitted with the purpose of establishing the beneficiary's extraordinary ability as a 
and the petitioner did not attempt to establish that the beneficiary possesses extraordinary 
ability specifically as an instructor. The petitioner had ample opportunity to submit documentary evidence in 
support of its claims, and it is unclear what further evidence the petitioner would have submitted in response to 
a second RFE. The director ultimately accepted and evaluated the petitioner's evidence related to the 
beneficiary's career as a competitive athlete. Therefore, counsel's assertions that the director erred by not 
issuing a second RFE or a notice of intent to deny are not persuasive. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
At the outset, it is critical to reiterate that simply submitting evidence to satisfy the evidentiary criteria will not 
automatically establish eligibility for this visa classification. The mere fact that the petitioner has submitted 
evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not necessarily establish that the 
alien is eligible for 59 Fed Reg. 41818,41820 (August 15, 1994). 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its burden of 
proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The petitioner does not claim that the 
beneficiary qualifies on the basis of his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. 
1 The statute and regulations require the beneficiary's national or international acclaim to be sustained and that the 
beneficiary continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1l01(a)(15)(0)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(ii)(A)(1). In Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 
2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any 
profession in that field. For example, "extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not 
imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball industry 
such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. Generally, while an instructor and competitor share 
knowledge of the sport, the two occupations may rely on very different sets of basic skills. The petitioner 
acknowledged that the beneficiary's accomplishments are principally as a competitor, but submitted testimonial 
evidence noting that "the distinction between competition and IS 
immaterial in light of the philosophies which guide the martial arts." notes 
that "it is common practice for taekwondo athletes who are actively e~ participate in the 
instruction of lower ranking athletes," and indicates that "many of our _ are also active as 
high level coaches." 
Page 7 
Accordingly, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set 
forth at 8 c.P.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner has indicated that the beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 
c.P.R. §§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(J), (2), (3), and (4) and submits documentation relevant to these criteria only. As 
such, the remaining four criteria will not be addressed in this decision. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
To meet criterion number one, the petitioner must submit documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(J). 
In a letter dated September 15, 2009, the petitioner stated that the benlehclruy .. is 
considered one of the best 
beneficiary "has placed in liU'.""""",,,,,, rV\I'Y1n,,,ht1r\n 
The petitioner further noted that the beneficiary has 
support of the petition, the petitioner provided 
The petitioner also submitted photo identification confirming that the beneficiary participated in the 
did not provide documentation of his results in the games. The beneficiary 
indicates in his resume that he placed fourth in this competition. The beneficiary listed other gold, silver and 
bronze awards in other competitions in his resume, but the corroborating documentation was limited to the 
evidence listed above. 
In a request for evidence ("RFE") issued on December 21, 2009, the director requested additional evidence to 
establish the significance of the beneficiary's national and international awards, including evidence to establish the 
Page 8 
origin, purpose, significance, and scope of each award and the criteria used to judge the award winners. The 
director also requested that the petitioner provide evidence to identify the previous winners of the awards. 
In response to the director's specific inquiries, the petitioner indicated that "each award originates from the club or 
association issuing the award," and that "the purpose of the award is to recognize the winner of the corresponding 
competition." With respect to the "scope and significance" of the awards, the petitioner indicated that "the awards 
signify superiority to ones competitors and mastery of_ The petitioner stated that "generally speaking, 
a first place (or gold) award indicated that [the beneficiary] is the best in the nation or among the competing 
nations in the particular weight class and event." The petitioner noted that all competitors are judged according to 
the rules and regulations, a copy of which was submitted. 
Finally, the petitioner noted that previous winners of each award are m~ub or association 
. the . provided a letter from ____ , the host of the 
for the last 
The record also contains an advisory opinion letter from 
The petitioner indicated that it 
copies of his prizes and awards as those submitted with the petition. 
[The beneficiary] is a [The 
beneficiary] has competed professionally since 1993 and won and placed in international 
competitions throughout the ... His accomplishments 
include but are not limited to 
on to list the beneficiary's which we presume, based on the petitioner's 
statements, was derived from the are listed. As 
noted above, the petitioner has submitted corroborating documents for only those awards listed above. 
Page 9 
that the oenlenclru:y 
since 2004, has competed as a member of a state team. He notes that "in order to represent the state 
team in the national championships, [the beneficiary] had to place in his weight class in division meets." 
_indicates that the has three different and in 2007, took 
In ' ......... UH, 
He incorporates the same "championship record" and explicitly states that it was derived 
Much of the letter is very similar in content when to the letter provided 
also notes that the beneficiary is the only competitor in 
The director determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's awards can 
be considered nationally or internationally recognized prizes. The director noted that "although each club or 
association may describe its particular competition as being a national or international event, the evidence fails to 
show that the stated prizes and awards the alien has won are 
an example, the director noted that the sponsor of the 
to be affiliated with the California Unified 
Ranking System, and as such appears to be a regional competition. The director named an Olympic medal as a 
prize that would be considered as nationally or internationally recognized in Taekwondo. 
On appeal, counsel states that the director's comments regarding the beneficiary's awards "appear to misconstrue 
and regulation and confuse the issue of hosting with recognition." Counsel further asserts: 
We submit that these are not the same; a competition or event can be nationally or international 
recognized, as required by the regulation, regardless of who is hosting it. For example, the 
Boston marathon is the oldest and arguably the most prestigious marathon in the U.S. 
Inarguably, it is recognized as a legitimate event throughout the world; and yet, it is hosted by 
the Boston Athletic Association (BAA), a private non-profit organization. To conclude based on 
its host alone, that the winner of the Boston Marathon has not won a nationally or internationally 
recognized award/prize would be a grave error. 
Here, too, the significance of the awards is not based on the hosts of the competitions, but rather 
the recognition of those competitions within the national and international taekwondo 
community. 
by the Director, we submit that the 
is an internationally recognized competition specifically 
because taekwondo athletes travel from around the world to participate in the event. The 
recognition of this award is also established by its citation in the consultation letter from USA 
Page 10 
the highest authority for the sport in the United States .... We contend that 
reference to the award in the letter constitutes recognition of the award. 
Further, the Director does not consider or comment on the most compelling evidence submitted 
d th' I th b fi' fr t the • ! • 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner submitted insufficient evidence to 
demonstrate the significance and magnitude of the competitive events won by the beneficiary. For instance, 
there is no evidence of the official results from the preceding competitions indicating the number of entrants in 
the beneficiary'S competitive category or weight division. Moreover, 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 petitioner has not provided evidence of the 
entry requirements to any of these competitions. The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of 
recognition and achievement associated with the beneficiary'S awards. 
The AAO acknowledges counsel's example of the an internationally recognized event, 
however, it is the petitioner's burden to establish events at the beneficiary won awards enjoy a 
similar national or international reputation within the beneficiary'S sport. For the AAO would 
to appear on the calendar of the 
While the director erred by providing an Olympic medal as the type of award needed to satisfy the criterion, 
the AAO notes that national championships, continental championships and world championships are 
examples of the types of awards that would clearly qualify under this criterion without supporting evidence 
beyond copies of the awards themselves. The beneficiary has received awards at competitions billed as 
"national championships," however, the AAO cannot conclude based on the evidence submitted 
awards the the distinction of considered 
class. 
championship event in any sport is held only once annually. 
the beneficiary had to defeat a specific number of competitors at division 
in the national championships, as noted above, the petitioner has not 
these events. Furthermore, given the petitioner's statements that state that they 
reviewed only the beneficiary'S resume and copies of some of the awards listed therein, it is unclear where they 
derived specific information regarding the number of competitors that the beneficiary faced at divisional meets 
and it appears that this information was simply derived from the petitioner's initial support letter. Similarly, it 
is not clear how they concluded based on the resume and of some of the b~ 
the is the or that_ 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(iii) provides that affidavits written by recognized experts certifying to 
the recognition and extraordinary ability shall specifically describe the alien's recognition and ability in factual 
terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
Page 11 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(0)(iii)(B). Both letters mention multiple awards for which there is no 
corroborating documentary evidence. also make statements about the beneficiary's 
the scope of the information the petitioner states it provided to them. Neither 
state where they acquired this additional information regarding the beneficiary. 
Contrary to counsel's assertions, mere mention of an award in an advisory opinion letter is insufficient to 
establish that the award is nationally or internationally recognized. The AAO may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony in visa proceedings. However, where an opinion is 
not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, the AAO is not required to accept or may 
give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988). Where the 
regulations require specific, objective evidence in support of a petition, the petitioner's burden of proof is not 
satisfied by submitting unsupported expert testimony. 8 C.P .R. § 103 .2(b)(1). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement from national coordinator of 
., .•.• ~. I.. ..~ 
_ Championships are part of the "sanctioned national sports calendar" and "open to individual 
practitioners, affiliated clubs to attend." This evidence is insufficient to clarify the entrance requirements for 
this competition and appears to contradict other statements in the record that competitors in these events 
participate as members of state teams after winning divisional meets. 
"'"H'~''''''' that the beneficiary's awards at the 
are the 
According to the beneficiary'S resume, he finished in in 
_ The record contains evidence of his participation at this event, but no evidence of the official results of 
the event. Regardless, the AAO cannot find that a fourth place finish, just outside the medal standings, is 
considered a prize or award. 
With respect to the _ the AAO is unable to determine that 
International" whic=r of the event, is actually a recognized 
organization, or that the competition itself was a significant international'''-'·Pf'I··''Tn 
certificates states on its face that_is "affiliated to" The 
be a _ organization, rather than an international 
international go~ body for the sport, recognizes the as the continental body 
for the sport in_2 Absent additional information regarding the scope and significance of the award, the 
AAO cannot find that the beneficiary'S gold medal at a _event qualifies under this criterion. While 
the petitioner appeared to have difficulty responding to the director's request for evidence the scope 
~ance of the beneficiary'S awards, the AAO notes that the and USA 
-.-maintain calendars of significant competitions on their websites. If, for example, the Pan African 
competition is an internationally-recognized event in the sport, the petitioner could 
provide evidence that it is included on the WTP calendar. Going on record without supporting documentary 
2 http://www.wtf.org/wtf eng/site/about wtf/member main.html (accessed on September 23,2010) 
Page 12 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 0/ Saffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter a/Treasure Craft a/California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972». 
For the foregoing reasons, the AAO finds the evidence submitted insufficient to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
214.2( 0 )(3)(iii)(B)(1). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(2), the 
petitioner must document the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, 
minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues 
or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute 
outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here 
is membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary ifies under this criterion based on his membership in the_ 
The petitioner further states that the beneficiary was a member of 
"multiple state teams, specifically a member of the _Association, 
.. Association." The petitioner indicated that "in order to represent the state team in the national 
championships, [the beneficiary] had to place [at] the top of his weight class in division meets." 
In the request for evidence issued on December 21,2009, the director had specifically requested evidence of the 
current number of members, the existence of national or international experts who make determinations about 
membership in the associations, and any other conditions or requirements of . . The petItIOner 
responded that such evidence is not available due to loss of records by 
The petitioner has submitted a photocopy of the beneficiary'S credentials for the 
Association," but has neither submitted any evidence of the membership or eligibility requirements for this 
association, nor provided evidence that prospective members in the association are judged by recognized national 
or international experts in the field. Accordingly, the AAO has no basis on which to conclude that membership in 
this association qualifies under the second criterion. 
We acknowledge that membership on an a major national team such as a may 
serve to meet this criterion as such teams are limited in the number of members and have a ngorous selection 
process. We reiterate, however, that it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets every 
element of this criterion, including that he is a member of a team that requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. Here, the petitioner indicates that the 
Page 13 
beneficiary participated in national competition for various state teams as a result of winning competitions at the 
divisional level. The petitioner has not provided evidence that any of these state teams require outstanding 
achievements from their members as judged by recognized national or international experts in the sport. 
Furthermore, the beneficiary's membership in state-level teams has not been adequately documented in the record. 
The submitted evidence does not satisfy this evidentiary criterion. 
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 
To meet the third criterion, the petitioner must submit 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 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3). In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be 
primarily about the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional 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 or regional 
publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would 
qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.3 
At the time of filing, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary, "as the ' has earned 
"widespread 
people, and 
the petitioner stated that the beneficiary has received 
'''''~W'F, lliew~ma'ner which caters to the interest of the common 
It is unclear whether 
The name of the 
scheduled to be held in the 
notes that the beneficiary "had performed impressively at the open trial 
held last month," and that the beneficiary said that competing at the upcoming festival would" 
new lease oflife." The second article was published on the same date, with the headline 
qualification for the California State team scheduled to 
coordinator As with the other article, the petitioner did not include the title of the newspaper in its 
photocopy of the article. 
3 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement 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. 
Page 14 
In the RFE, the director requested that the petitioner provide evidence to establish the significance of the published 
material about the beneficiary. The director specifically instructed the petitioner to provide additional information 
regarding the publications including each publication's name, how often they are printed, and the number of copies 
printed. 
~r reiterated that the beneficiary has received widespread press coverage in the _ 
_ The petitioner stated that both are nationally circulated daily newspapers and referred 
to the website for each newspaper. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the submitted articles were published in major trade 
publications. The names of the publications are not included in the photocopies of the articles, and the petitioner 
failed to provide evidence to support its assertions that the claimed publications are major national daily 
newspapers by providing the requested circulation figures. It is not USCIS' burden to search for that information 
on the newspapers' websites. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972». 
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 
time of filing, the stated that the beneficiary meets this criterion, at 8 C.F.R § 
to the beneficiary, indicating that he served as an official at this event. 
The director requested that the petitioner provide evidence to establish the significance of the work judged by 
the beneficiary and the criteria used to choose him as a judge. The director also asked that the petitioner 
explain how and why the beneficiary was invited to judge the work of others in his field. The petitioner 
responded that the director's request "doesn't really make sense for our petition since the judging in question 
was at an athletic competition." The petitioner submitted the rules and 
regulations "for further clarification about the role of judges at 
The attached om~11tI()llS to be 
" According 
to the official competition rules, each match has a referee and four judges. Qualifying referees must be 
"holders in International Referee Certificate registered by the WTF." The referee has control over the match 
and its rules, while the judges award points. The referee may break a tie if the judges do not agree on whether 
a point should be awarded. 
Page 15 
his role as an official at the 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on 
noting that the petitioner did not demonstrate the 
significance of acting as a judge at this event. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director relied on extra-regulatory standards in requiring that the 
petitioner demonstrate the significance of the event at which the beneficiary judged or the criterion for his 
being selected as a judge. 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the evidence submitted meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The weight to be given to the beneficiary's experience as an official will be considered below in our final 
merits determination. 
In light of the foregoing, the petitioner has submitted evidence that satisfies the plain language of one of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a fmal merits determination that considers all of 
the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) that the beneficiary has achieved 
a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii); and (2) that the beneficiary has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(0)(3)(iii) and section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1l01(a)(15)(0)(i). See Kazarian, 2010 WL 
725317 at *3. In this case, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( 0 )(3)(iii)(B). 
Regardless, we will highlight some of the petitioner's claims of eligibility as they pertain to a final merits 
determination. The has submitted documentation of the beneficiary'S receipt of awards described as 
However, the petitioner did not provide supporting evidence 
are nationally or internationally recognized within the sport. The 
a well-defined structure for national, continental, and 
international If these competitions are nationally or internationally-recognized in the sport, it 
should not be difficult to evidence that . ized within this structure. Furthermore, with 
respect to the the conflicting information 
regarding the indicate that these competitions 
involve state teams competing against one another within a defined championship structure, while 
indicates that these are open competitions in which individual practitioners and affiliated 
clubs may attend. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Page 16 
While the beneficiary did compete in an international event, the the petitioner also 
indicates that he finished in fourth place in his weight class. While this finish is a notable achievement, it does 
not rise to the level of an internationally-recognized award. Furthermore, as discussed above, many of the 
beneficiary's claimed prizes and awards have simply not been documented in the record. 
With respect to the petitioner's submission of published articles, the AAO again emphasizes that even if the 
petitioner had submitted photocopies of the articles that clearly identified the name of the publications and 
submitted evidence to establish that the publications qualify as major newspapers, the evidence would offer little 
support to the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary has a record of sustained national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted two articles both published on the same date in 2009. Contrary to the petitioner's claims 
this evidence does not establish that the beneficiary has received widespread media coverage and is not in line 
with the statutory requirement that the petitioner establish the beneficiary's eligibility through submission of 
"extensive evidence." It is reasonable to expect that an athlete at the very top of an Olympic sport such as 
taekwondo would gamer more consistent and widespread attention in the sports media. 
With respect to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214 the AAO acknowledges that the beneficiary 
served as an official at the the certificate confirming the 
beneficiary's officiating role at this event was sufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation, the AAO does 
not concur with counsel that the additional background information requested by the director was irrelevant. 
users must weigh the amount and type of evidence to determine whether it supports a finding that the beneficiary 
has enjoyed sustained national or international acclaim and whether the evidence is consistent with a conclusion 
that the beneficiary is more likely than not an athlete at the very top of the field. Therefore, inquiries into such 
factors as the criteria used for choosing officials and the level of competition judged, are frequently necessary 
when evaluating this criterion. The evidence submitted by the indicates that _competitions 
the require referees to have an 
The petitioner has neither claimed nor provided 
evidence that the beneficiary has this certificate and it remains unclear on what basis he came to be an "official" at 
the event. Furthermore, the petitioner has only provided evidence that the beneficiary served as 
an official at a single event in 2008. As such, the evidence does not support a finding that the beneficiary has the 
requisite sustained national or international acclaim. 
The conclusion we reach by considering each evidentiary criterion separately is consistent with a review of the 
evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of 
the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii). The 
petitioner relies mainly on the beneficiary's awards, two recent newspaper articles, and one instance of officiating 
experience to establish his eligibility. While the beneficiary is clearly a talented athlete, the AAO cannot conclude 
that he has reached the very highest levels of achievement in the sport of taekwondo. 
Page 17 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Congo 
Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the petitioner must 
establish that the beneficiary is "at the very top" of his field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii). The 
beneficiary's achievements have not yet risen to this level. Review of the record does not establish that the 
beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national 
or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section lOl(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
This denial does not preclude the petitioner from filing a new immigrant or nonimmigrant visa petition, 
supported by the required evidence. As always, the burden remains with the petitioner to establish eligibility 
for the requested visa classification. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.