dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: HM 2 0 
SRC 07 085 5 1992 
IN RE: 
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 1 153(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.5 for the specific requirements. 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. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
3 103S(a)(l)(i). 
k&adyliiL 
f' John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established that she sought to enter the United States for the purpose of continuing in her area of 
expertise. The director further determined the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Counsel for the petitioner timely filed a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, on which he 
indicated that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days of 
filing the appeal. As of the date of this decision, however, more than six months after the appeal was 
filed, no mer documentation has been received by the AAO. Therefore, the record will be 
considered complete as presently constituted. 
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 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 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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 has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 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. 8 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria 
Page 3 
will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on January 17, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in athletics. The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seek to 
continue work in her area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 1 53(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5). Such evidence may include letter(s) 
from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her 
work in the United States. 
The petitioner's initial documentation indicated that she is a bodybuilder. In a request for 
evidence (RFE) dated April 28, 2007, the director instructed the petitioner to "submit 
documentary evidence of your plans for continuation of work in this specialty or in another 
athletic specialty in the United States." In his July 17, 2007 letter accompanying the petitioner's 
response, counsel stated that the petitioner "has been and fully intends to pursue training and 
competing on a national level as well as participate in international level competitions as soon as 
such becomes available." However, the record contains no statement from the petitioner or other 
documentation to support counsel's statement. Without documentary evidence to support the 
claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 
n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The record contains a copy of a page from the 
website of the National Amateur Bodybuilders Association (NABBA) USA, accessed on July 16, 
2007, which indicates that athletes competing in "national competitions" in the United States 
must be U.S. citizens. The petitioner, however, submitted no documentation to indicate that she 
has been or will be competing in any competitions on less than a national level until she actually 
receives U. S. citizenship. 
The petitioner also submitted a Jul 16, 2007 letter from 
 signed by the 
general manager of operations, b, who stated that the spa intended to employ the 
petitioner "in a variety of health and fitness roles." Mr. further stated that the organization 
intended to "offer her expertise in the area of performance weight training to guests and 
members." We note that a trainer is similar to a coach or instructor. However, while the 
petitioner appears to have achieved a moderate level of success as a bodybuilder, she cannot rely 
on her prior success as a competitive bodybuilder to meet this classification if she seeks to enter 
the U.S. to work as a fitness trainer or instructor. While a competitive bodybuilder and a coach 
or trainer certainly share knowledge of weight training, the two rely on very different sets of 
basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching or training are not the same area of 
expertise.' Given the equivocal evidence about the petitioner's intended employment in the 
1 
 While not binding precedent, we note that the reasoning contained in Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 
2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), supports this interpretation: 
Page 4 
U.S., we cannot conclude that she seeks to enter the U.S. to continue to work in her area of 
expertise. 
Similarly, as it relates to the "sustained acclaim" that a petitioner is required to demonstrate 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, while a nexus exists between competing and 
coaching or instructing in a given sport, to assume that every athlete's area of expertise includes 
instruction or training would be too speculative. To resolve this issue, in a case where an alien 
has clearly achieved national or international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim 
in the field of coaching or instruction at a national or international level, we can consider the 
totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary 
ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. 
Specifically, in such a case we will consider the level at which the alien acts as coach or 
instructor. A coach who has established a successful history of instructing athletes who compete 
regularly at the national level has a credible claim; an instructor of novices does not. Thus, we 
will examine whether the petitioner has demonstrated her extraordinary ability as a competitive 
athlete and as a trainer or instructor. If the petitioner has demonstrated extraordinary ability as an 
athlete, we will then consider the level at which she has successfully trained. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally 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. A petitioner, however, 
cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply 
relates to at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether 
the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether 
it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower 
evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary 
ability" as "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. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following   rite ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
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, Lee's 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 instructor. 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in 
this decision. 
Page 5 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted the following: 
1. 
 A copy of a "First Prize Diploma," awarded to the petitioner in the April 1 1-1 2, 1992 
Ukraine Bodybuilding Cup in the women's 52 kg weight category. 
2. A photograph of a "medal prize" in an open bodybuilding tournament. The photograph 
does not show a date or the name of the winner. 
3. A copy of a November 1, 1992 " awarded to the petitioner in 
"The First National Championship of Ukraine in Bodybuilding" in the women's 57kg 
weight category. 
4. A photograph of a 1993 medal from the NABBA "Universe Contests." The photograph 
does not show the name of the winner. 
5. A photograph of a "medal prize" from the State Sport Committee of Ukrainian USSR. 
The photograph does not contain a date or the name of the winner. 
6. A copy of an August 18, 1996 certificate indicating that the petitioner won th- 
in the Grand Buenos Aires Tournament. 
As it relates to the awards listed at 1,3, and 6, the only awards that actually contain the 
petitioner's name, the petitioner submitted no documentation to demonstrate that an award 
conferred in any of these contests is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a copy of a July 17, 2007 e-mail from a 
fi-on-., in which she forwarded an e-mail from - 
. In his e-mail, certified that the petitioner 
competed in the 1993 Universe Championships. The petitioner provided pictures of herself at the 
competition and a DVD of the competition. The petitioner also submitted a December 12, 2006 
"verification letter" from in the 
Ukraine. The letter certified that: 
1991 until 1993. During this period of time she competed with Europe and world 
cham~ions at Ukraine ~odvbuildin~ Cur, where she became a winner and took 
the "~ha*~ionshi~ of Ukraine in Bodybuilding; 
became a member of the National Bodybuilding Team and won them 
the Union of Independent States (UIS) International Bodybuilding Championship 
in 1992 and 1993 as well as become a finalist of Miss Universe Contest in 
London in 1 993. 
Page 6 
The director determined that participants in NABBA events retain their status as "amateurs," and 
that participation in such events "cannot carry the evidentiary weight of top-level awards and 
titles." We concur with this determination regarding amateurs. The director, however, ultimately 
found that the petitioner meets this criterion based on her in the 1992 Ukraine 
Body Building Cup. 
While we acknowledge the petitioner's receipt of this award, we cannot concur with the director 
that the petitioner meets this criterion based on an award that she won in 1992. As previously 
cited, section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires an alien seeking entry into the U.S. as an alien 
of extraordinary ability to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The petition 
was filed on January 17, 2007. The petitioner submitted no documentation of any awards or 
prizes that she received subsequent to 1996. As discussed above, a petitioner cannot establish 
eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to a given criterion. 
The evidence itself must be indicative of or consistent with the petitioner's sustained national or 
international acclaim in her area of expertise. The petitioner has not established that her awards 
or prizes, received 10 years before she filed her petition, are demonstrable of sustained acclaim 
in the field of bodybuilding. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in determining that the petitioner's awards were 
not "major" or "internationally recognized." Counsel states: 
Petitioner's awards and achievements in the field of women's body building are 
major and internationally recognized. CIS reasoned that petitioner had not won an 
Olympic Gold medal and therefore had not achieved major and internationally 
recognized awards in her field. CIS erroneously failed to recognize that women's 
body building is not an Olympic Sport and Petitioner could not have obtained an 
Olympic medal. However, petitioner was a finalist in the 1993 N.A.B.B.A. 
Universe Championship, which, as the record shows, is the equivalent of the 
world body building championships. CIS misinterpreted and erroneously 
minimized the significance and prestige of the N.A.B.B.A Universe 
Championship because it allows amateurs to compete (as does the Olympics). 
We note first that neither counsel nor the petitioner claimed that her awards constituted major, 
internationally recognized awards that would make her eligible for this criterion based on a one- 
time achievement. Further, the record does not support counsel's assertion. Without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter oflaureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. Second, even if the NABBA Universe Championship 
was the equivalent to an Olympic prize, the record only shows that the petitioner was a finalist in 
the competition. The record does not indicate the position that she placed and contains no 
documentation to support the assertion that placing as a finalist is the equivalent of winning any 
award. Third, as discussed above, the petitioner must establish that she has achieved sustained 
acclaim. The petitioner has submitted no documentation to establish that she has won any awards 
Page 7 
or prizes since 1996. Finally, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that she has 
won any awards or prizes as a trainer or instructor. 
The evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. We withdraw the 
director's determination to the contrary. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In order to meet this criterion, the published materials must be about the petitioner and be printed 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national distribution and be published in a predominant 
language. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality 
but would qualify as major media because of a significant national distribution. 
The petitioner submitted a partial copy of what counsel claims is an insert from the February 
1993 "Soviet Sport Newspaper - Vestnik." According to the translation, the petitioner's picture 
appears on page 11 under the caption "Finalists of the Union of Independent States International 
Bodybuilding Championship in Moscow, Russia." Documentation submitted also included 
pictures of the petitioner in Torneo magazine, which, according to the translation, appeared in 
the 1996 Buenos Aires edition of the publication; a picture of the petitioner and other women, 
which according to the translation, appeared in the 1997 edition of Torneo magazine; and a page 
from Torneo magazine listing the results of the Buenos Aires'97 Bodybuilding Championship. 
The documentation submitted does not constitute materials about the petitioner or her work. Four 
of the documents only contain captioned photographs and the other document is a list of winners 
of a competition. In addition, the documentation does not include the title, date, and author of the 
material as required by the regulation. While one of the photographs and the results of the 
bodybuilding championship indicated that they appeared in Torneo, the others do not and none 
of the documentation includes the dates indicated by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner only 
submitted partial translations of the documents. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(3) requires 
that documents submitted in a foreign language "be accompanied by a full English translation 
which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification 
that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a copy of a page from the Wikipedia website, 
which counsel states is proof of the article that appeared in Vestnik and also evidence of its 
circulation. With regard to the information posted on Wikipedia, there are no assurances about 
the reliability of the content fiom this open, user-edited internet site.3 As such, we will not gve 
significant weight to claims for which Wikipedia is the only cited source. 
3 
 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
The petitioner also submitted copies of pages from Fitness Culture magazine. The document 
contains a smaller copy of the photograph of the petitioner after she won the 1996 Argentinean 
Championship. The document also includes an article accompanied by several photographs 
including the petitioner's. The article does not mention the petitioner, although her name does 
appear under her photograph. The petitioner also submitted a more complete translation to 
accompany the results of the 1997 Buenos Aires Bodybuilding Championship, which according 
to the translation, appeared in the Fitness Culture magazine. However, none of these 
photographs are considered material about the petitioner or her work. Further, even if considered 
to be about the petitioner, the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to establish that the 
publications are considered to be professional or major trade publications. Finally, the petitioner 
submitted no documentation of any published materials about her work as a bodybuilding trainer 
or fitness consultant. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. In his June 17, 2007 letter 
accompanying the petitioner's response to the RFE, counsel asserted: 
National NABBAs have strict rules regarding the commercial competitions which 
involve money prizes. Existence of these rules is caused by the Amateur Status 
requirement of NABBA International. Only athletes who have never entered and 
accepted prize money in an advertised professional event are considered amateurs 
and have a right to compete in National Competitions and NABBA Universe. 
Therefore, [the petitioner's] high level of remuneration in relation to others in her 
athletic specialty consists of various trophies, medals and diplomas. 
Wikpedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary 
association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human 
knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to 
alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed 
by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable 
information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. 
The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered 
by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the 
relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.or~wiki/Wikipedia:Disclaimers, accessed on March 17, 2009, and 
incorporated into the record. 
Page 9 
Counsel's assertion is without merit. Awards and prizes won as a result of an athletic 
competition are not remuneration. The petitioner's medals and diplomas have been considered 
under other categories discussed above. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted no documentary 
evidence that her "remuneration" was high relative to others in bodybuilding, and submitted no 
documentation that she commands a high salary or significantly high remuneration relative to 
other bodybuilding trainers. The evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
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 her field of endeavor. Review of the 
record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a bodybuilder, 
trainer or fitness consultant to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her 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.