U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF M-Z-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: MAR. 13,2017

APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION

PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALlEN WORKER

The Petitioner, a mixed martial artist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation.

The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three.

On appeal, the Petitioner submits documentation and a brief stating that he meets at least three criteria.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

Section 203(b) ofthe Act states in pertinent part:

(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C):

(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -An alien is described in this subparagraph if-

(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the 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,

(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and

Matter of M-Z-

(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States.

The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing ·regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a m~jor, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles).

Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fultilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp~. 3d . . 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011), a.ff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be. proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the totality of the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the tield of endeavor.

II. ANALYSIS

The Petitioner is a fighter in mixed martial arts (MMA) matches around the world. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ahernate regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet .any of the regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the original contributions criterion under § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the display criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 1 We have reviewed all of the evidence in

1 Although he previously claimed eligibility for the high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), on appe1!!1 the Petitioner does not contest the Director's finding, offer further arguments, or submit additional evidence for this criterion, nor does the record support a finding that he meets it. Accordingly, we will not address this criterion in our decision.

2

(b)(6)

Matter ~~ M-Z-

the record of proceedings, and it does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria.

A. Evidentiary Criteria

Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.for excellence in the field qf endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).

The Director determined that the Petitioner's submission of information from Wikipedia, an open­content collaborative encyclopedia, was not adequate to establish his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. A review of the record, however, indicates that the Petitioner provided sufficient supporting evidence, such as media reports, MMA­related screenshots, and reference letters, to show that his championship title bouts at the 2:009

and 2010 are internationally recognlzed awards for excellence in his field. Accordingly, the Petitioner demonstrated that he meets this criterion.

Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field.fi.Jr which classtfication is sought. which require outstanding achievements of their members. as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields·. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).

The Petitioner claims membership with and In order to demonstrate that membership

in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition for membership.

The record reflects that and are organizations that promote MMA. Although the Petitioner's documentation confirms his MMA tights under the promotion of

and they relate to his contractual employment rather than his membership with associations. In addition, while the Petitioner provided documentation regarding the associations' histories, he did not submit evidence showing their membership requirements, such as ·bylaws, to establish that membership requires outstanding achievements. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his employment with and meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion necessitating membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members.

Regarding the documentation indicates that it is an gym and training facility. Again, the Petitioner submitted documentation regarding the entity's founding and history rather than its membership requirements. We note that the Petitioner presented an article about owner and founder of who stated that "[w]e're a family gym. I bet 95 percent of the people who come here are schoolteachers, children, [and] grandmas." Thus, the Petitioner has not shown that membership with requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition for membership. Therefore, he does not meet this criterion.

3

(b)(6)

Matter of M-Z-

Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other mQjor media. relating to the alien's work in the field.for which classification is sought. S'uch evidence shall include the title, date. and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 CF .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iii).

The record contains screenshots from and that reflect publisi~ed

material about the Petitioner relating to his MMA fights in major media. Accordingly, the Petitioner established that he meets this criterion.

Evidence of the alien 's original scient(fic. scholarly, artistic. athletic. or business-related contributions of major sign(ficance in thejield 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).

The Petitioner contends that his MMA tights and tournaments serve as evidence of his original contributions of major significance in the field. While he demonstrated that he participated in MMA-related events, the Petitioner has not shown how such participation is tantamount to orig,inal contributions of major significance in the field. He did not, for instance, point to a particular match or provide a specific example explaining its impact or unusual importance to MMA. Moreover, the Petitioner submitted a list of the top 200 MMA attendance venues; hov.;ever, he did not establish .that he was on the fight cards or in the featured matches.

In addition, the Petitioner indicates that other MMA fighters have incorporated "high kicks like those pioneered and made famous" by him in their own matches. He submitted a letter from

a professional MMA fighter, who stated that the Petitioner has helped him by expo~ing him to high kicks that have improved his own skills. In addition;

indicated that the Petitioner is known for his signature that are challenging and difficult to execute. The letters, however, do not provide speqific information explaining how the Petitioner's technique has influenced the MMA field in a significant manner beyond its impact on the two authors. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholdi~g a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole).

Similarly, the Petitioner refers to letters from team captain, and owner of as evidence of his qualifications as an MMA fig~ter.

Although highly praises the Petitioner for his fighting and training skills, he does·.not demonstrate how the Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance to MMA.: In addition, summarizes the Petitioner's successful matches and indicates his fan bas~ in

. I

Lithuania, Russia, and Europe. however, does not describe how the Petitioner's matches have been of major significance or provide specific information regarding the impact of the Petitioner's fan base on MMA.

Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contribution:s of major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010,

4

(b)(6)

Matter of M-Z-

the Kazarian court reiterated that the USCIS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how tHose contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Repeating the languiage of the statute or regulations does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co. , Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N. Y. 1989), qffd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates. Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The US. Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Without suppot1ing evidence, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field.

Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).

The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion as his competitions were athletic in nature and made a reference to "poster presentations at scientific conferences." On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that he "is an athlete, not an artist, since he is a professional MMA fighter," and claims that the Director's reference to his poster presentations indicates that his petition was not thoroughly reviewed.

In order to demonstrate eligibility for this criterion, the Petitioner must show that his work was on display, and the venues were artistic exhibitions or showcases? A complete review of the record reflects that the Petitioner has not established that his MMA fights and competitions were o1f an artistic nature, or that the events themselves constituted artistic venues. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the plain language of this criterion.

Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).

The Petitioner indicates that he performed in a leading role in the and tournaments, a leading or critical role for and a critical role for In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment.

Although he demonstrated that he competed in and tournaments, as well as fought under promotions, the Petitioner has not shown how his role as a competitive fighter is reflective of a leading role for them. The record does not include evidence, for example, differentiating his role as a competitor from the roles of the other competitors or employees of

2 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005. I, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator "s Field Manual (A FM) 9 (Dec. 22, 20 I 0), http://www.uscis.gov/laws/po]icy­memoranda.

5

(b)(6)

Matter of M-Z-

and Furthermore, the Petitioner has not indicated where his position fits in the overall hierarchy of the organizations. Without evidence establishing that he performed in a leading role, the Petitioner's role as a competitor in and of itself is insufficient to show that h is leading consistent with the plain language ofthis regulatory criterion.

Regarding the critical nature of his role at and the Petitioner has not demonstrated . how he impacted their standings in the field . The Petitioner, for instance, did not show that garnered attention or increased attendance based on his event appearances. Similarly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his training and membership at is tantamount to a critical role .. ·As discussed under the original contributions crjterion, discussed the Petitioner's trairying skills at but he did not show how his training contributed to the success of For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating his eligibility under this criterion.

B. Summary

As explained above, the record only satisfies two of the regulatory criteria. As a result, :the Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).

Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final mtj!rits determination that considers all o( evidence in the context of whether or not the Petitioner ··has demonstrated: ( 1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustai'ned national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the fleld of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although1 we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of· the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise required for the classification sought.

C. P-1 Nonimmigrant Status

We note the record of proceedings reflects that the Petitioner received P-1 nonimmigrant status. Although USCIS has approved at least one P-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. ofJusNce, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd, 724 F. Supp. at 1103. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petitioltl, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a seryice center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual , we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmbnic

6

Matter of M-Z-

Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of M-Z-, ID# 291278 (AAO Mar. 13, 20 17)