dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

P IC COPY 
U.S. Department of EIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 06 199 53137 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 0 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 06 199 53137 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 1 53(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or intemational acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in failing to issue a request for additional evidence or 
notice of intent to deny prior to denying the petition. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(8)(i) 
permits the director to deny the petition where there is evidence of ineligibility. Even assuming the 
director erred in failing to issue either a request for additional evidence or notice of intent to deny, the 
most expedient remedy for that error would be to consider any additional evidence of eligibility on 
appeal. Counsel submits no new evidence on appeal and does not identify new evidence that is or 
would become available within the response period for a request for additional evidence. As such, 
counsel has not demonstrated how a remand for a request for additional evidence or notice of intent to 
deny would be meaningfbl in this matter. Counsel's assertions on the merits will be discussed below. 
For the reasons discussed in the body of this decision, we concur with the director that the petitioner, a 
tennis player at the collegiate level who has yet to turn "pro," has not demonstrated his eligibility for the 
exclusive classification sought. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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 
intemational 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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking 
LIN 06 199 53137 
Page 3 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a tennis player. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the regulations do not state that an individual must achieve a high level in 
professional ranks, but must simply rise to the very top of his field. We cannot ignore, however, that 
the petitioner's field includes professional tennis players. The supplementary information at 56 Fed. 
Reg. 60899 (Nov. 29, 1991) states: 
The Service disagrees that all athletes performing at the major league level should 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. . . . A blanket rule for all major 
league athletes would contravene Congress' intent to reserve this category to "that small 
percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Thus, not even all professional tennis players can qualify for the classification sought. While the 
regulations may not explicitly exclude collegiate athletes in a sport that has a flourishing professional 
league, the petitioner bears a high burden. He must compare with the small percentage at the top of his 
field, including those competing professionally.' Significantly, as will be discussed in more detail 
below, while the petitioner's references praise his talent and ability, they only discuss his hture 
potential to compete success~lly at the professional level. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that CIS "has recognized the [regulatory] criteria are not readily applicable 
to athletes" and that, therefore, we should accept "comparable" evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(4) does permit the submission of comparable 
evidence where the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable. Counsel cites no authority, however, 
for the assertion that CIS has adopted the broad conclusion that the regulatory criteria are not applicable 
to athletes. In fact, in Matter ofprice, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Act. Assoc. Cornrnr. 1994), a professional 
1 
 The petitioner has not demonstrated that rofessional tennis is limited to college graduates. We note that, 
according to www.tennis.about.com, i turned professional at age 16 and won Wimbledon at age 
?? 
LINO6 19953137 
Page 4 
golfer was found to qualify for classification under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act without any 
reference to "comparable evidence" or citation to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). In fact, the golfer's eligibility 
was demonstrated under the regulatory criteria because he had won nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i), was the subject of numerous 
newspaper articles in major media pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and had received significantly 
high remuneration pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Even if all of the regulatory criteria were inapplicable, and we note that initially counsel asserted that 
the petitioner meets several of them, any evidence submitted pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) must be 
sufficiently "comparable" to the ten objective criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). In this matter, 
counsel references the subjective opinions of the petitioner's references as "comparable." We are not 
persuaded that necessarily subjective reference letters are comparable to the objective evidence required 
under the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS may 
even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter ofsoflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). While we 
will consider the reference letters below, we will consider them only insofar as they relate to the 10 
regulatory criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria! 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion based on the following selections: 
southeastern Conference (SEC) Player of the Week (the only player in SEC history to be so named the 
first week of eligibility), Second Team All-SEC, Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) Player of the Week 
for two consecutive weeks (the only player to be voted in this spot for two consecutive weeks in 2006) 
and Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) 2006 All-America Honors. 
With no further explanation, counsel strongly implies on appeal that this criterion does not actually 
apply to athletics. We emphasize that the petitioner's failure to meet a given criterion does not render 
2 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
LIN 06 199 53137 
Page 5 
that criterion inapplicable to his entire field. The assertion that prizes and awards do not apply in the 
field of athletics cannot be credibly entertained. The field of athletics includes national and 
international competitions in almost every if not every sport. In fact, competition is one of the most 
hndamental aspects of nearly every sport. Examples of athletic prizes and awards include the 
Olympics, the World Cup in soccer, the Stanley Cup in hockey, the Super Bowl in American football, 
the World Series in baseball and, in the petitioner's sport of tennis, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. 
The petitioner has not established the significance of selection as "player of the week" such that we can 
consider such selection as a prize or award. Even if we did find that such selection is a prize or award, 
SEC and ACC recognition is purely regional. As such, those selections cannot be considered nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for which the most experienced and renowned members 
of the field nationally compete. 
The record contains no evidence regarding the number of collegiate players selected for ITA All- 
American Honors or other evidence of the significance of that selection. Moreover, it would appear 
that this selection is limited to college tennis players. The most experienced and renowned tennis 
players in the country do not aspire to win ITA All-American Honors. 
We emphasize that the issue is not that the petitioner received the above recognition while a college 
student but that the recognition is limited to college students. The petitioner's sport includes 
professional open tournaments and other prestigious cups. While the petitioner was selected for the 
Bahamian team to compete in the Davis Cup, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner won any 
prizes or awards in that tournament. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner has not won national 
collegiate level tournaments. Specifically, the June 2, 2006 article on CSTV.com, an internet division 
of CBS Sports devoted to college sports, reveals that the petitioner made his program's first round of 16 
appearances at the NCAA toumament in five years but does not reflect that the petitioner won this 
national collegiate tournament. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classrfication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner's membership in the National Collegiate Athletic 
Association (NCAA) and the ITA serve to meet this criterion. Counsel further asserts that both 
organizations "require stringent eligibility and conduct standards for membership and are nationally 
recognized." The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter oflaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The record does not contain the official 
membership criteria for either organization. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted the primary initial 
evidence required to meet this criterion. Moreover, on appeal, counsel states that a22 student athletes in 
LIN 06 199 53137 
Page 6 
their respective colleges are members of the NCAA and aN collegiate tennis players are members of the 
ITA. Assuming this claim is true, these memberships do not set the petitioner apart from other college 
tennis players. We cannot conclude that merely playing college sports is an "outstanding achievement" 
as contemplated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Moreover, professional and academic 
conduct are not outstanding achievements in tennis. 
On a case-by-case basis, this office has considered national team membership as potentially comparable 
evidence to meet this criterion. In 2003, the petitioner was selected for the Bahamian national team to 
compete in the American Zone 1 for the 2004 Davis Cup. While this team membership is persuasive 
evidence relating to this criterion, the petitioner was selected in December 2003, two and a half years 
before the petition was filed. Thus, without evidence indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim more proximate to the date of filing, we cannot conclude that this team 
membership is evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class@cation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
On appeal, this is the only criterion counsel acknowledges as applicable to the petitioner's field. The 
petitioner initially submitted articles in The Nassau Guardian, a Bahamian publication that appears to 
be called The Journal and the Bahamian Tribune edition of the Miami Herald about the final selections 
for the Bahamian National team for the Davis Cup. The only one of these articles to focus on the 
petitioner is the article in the Tribune. The petitioner did not submit the circulation data or any other 
evidence that these publications are major media. Whether or not the publications are professional or 
major trade publications or other major media is an element of this criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii). It is the petitioner's burden to establish that he meets every element of a given 
criterion. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted evidence of postings of his results on the websites of the colleges 
where he has attended and the ACC. While some of the articles on the official college websites can be 
considered "about" the petitioner, the articles posted on the ACC7s website cannot. While Internet sites 
are technically accessible nationally and even internationally, it cannot be credibly asserted that every 
Internet site has the same degree of national or international influence. Anyone can create a website 
and post articles. The mere act of posting an article online does not transform what is otherwise a local 
college newspaper article or regional conference newsletter into major media. The record lacks 
evidence that these sites routinely attract national or international attention beyond the audience of a 
physical college newspaper - students, parents and alumni. 
The record does contain an article about the petitioner accessed on College Sports Television's website, 
www.cstv.com. The article is authored by a writer for The Crimson W%ite, the University of Alabama's 
college paper. The petitioner was a student at the University of Alabama at the time. The petitioner 
has not demonstrated that The Crimson White is major media. The record does not establish the 
LIN 06 199 53137 
Page 7 
significance of this article being accessible on College Sports Television's website. For example, the 
petitioner did not submit evidence regarding how many college newspaper stories are accessible on this 
site. Without such evidence, the petitioner cannot establish that this article constitutes major media. 
The Miami Herald published an article on the petitioner and a fellow University of Miami tennis player 
in May 2006. This article does not demonstrate the petitioner's recognition outside of Florida. While 
the petitioner is mentioned on Stanford University's website, the article cannot be said to be "about" the 
petitioner as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Rather, the article reports on all 
the results from a specific tournament. 
The petitioner's transfer to the University of Miami is discussed in an issue of Florida Tennis. The 
same publication listed the results of the University of Miami's team at the University of Virginia 
Invitational, including the petitioner's. This last article is not primarily "about" the petitioner. 
Regardless, the petitioner has not established that Florida Tennis has a national circulation or can 
otherwise be considered major media. The coverage of the petitioner in this local publication does not 
seem indicative of or consistent with national or intemational acclaim. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted the June 2, 2006 article on College Sports Television's website 
reporting his selection and the selection of another University of Miami player for ITA All-American 
Honors. There is no byline for this article, suggesting it may be a press release rather than independent 
j oumalistic coverage. 
The petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence regarding the foreign published materials 
establishing their publication in major media. Moreover, those publications predate the filing of the 
petition by two and a half years and, thus, are not indicative of sustained national or intemational 
acclaim. The U.S. press coverage appears commensurate with the petitioner's status as a successful 
college player with some regional recognition. It is not on the level of a nationally acclaimed tennis 
player. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion based on his selection for the Bahamian 
National Team for the Davis Cup and favorable statements by the petitioner's coach and a U.S. Tennis 
Association (USTA) coach. 
We have already considered the petitioner's selection for the Bahamian National Team under the 
membership criterion above set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Under this criterion, we must 
consider the nature of the role the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entity that 
selected him. The nature of the role itself must be so significant that the very selection for that role is 
LIN06 19953137 
Page 8 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. We do not question the national 
reputation of the Bahamian National Team. We are not persuaded, however, that mere selection to 
compete for this team can serve to meet this criterion. His selection does not set him apart from the 
other players selected. For example, there is no evidence he was selected as team captain or another 
leading or critical role that set him apart from his teammates. 
, Head Men's Tennis Coach at the University of Miami and ACC Conference Coach of 
the Year, asserts 
 formidable player at the college level" and "the best player that 
I have coached.' 
 assert that the petitioner was selected for a specific role for the 
University of 
 of Alabama that is considered a leading or critical role for either 
goes on to state that the petitioner "will likely be one of the best 
athlete's [sic] to come out of the college ranks. Furthermore, [the petitioner] has the ability to achieve 
great success on the pro tour, potentially becoming a top 10 player." (Emphasis added.) This statement 
is not consistent with someone who is already within that small percentage at the top of his field. 
, a USTA coach, asserts that the petitioner is "one of the most talented players in 
this statement does not affirm that the petitioner was selected for a l&ng or 
critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. Moreover, like I 
~ssing his accomplishments and his coaching duties, he 
then concludes that he has "seen the youth of tennis grow" and feels that the petitioner "not only can 
compete but 
-:- 
ofessional level." This statement does not compare the 
petitioner to 
Comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C. F R. 9' 204.5@(4). 
As stated above, counsel asserts that the reference letters should serve as "comparable evidence" 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). As also stated above, we are not persuaded that the necessarily 
subjective opinions of the petitioner's references are comparable to the objective criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, while the letters praise the petitioner's talent, they do not provide 
specific examples of achievements that place the petitioner in the small percentage of those who have 
reached the top of the field, including professionals. 
We also acknowledge, however, that the petitioner has submitted evidence of his FILA Collegiate 
Tennis Rankings for Division I. In these rankings, the petitioner is ranked third in singles and 13th in 
doubles as of June 2,2006. 
LIN 06 199 53137 
Page 9 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
tennis player 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. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a tennis player and some regional recognition, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.