dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

Okkntifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
- 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 2 9 2009 
LIN 07 134 52286 
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. fj 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and reaffirmed that decision on motion.' The matter 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to quali~ for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and resubmits previously submitted evidence. For the reasons 
discussed below, we uphold the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not established 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 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking 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. 
1 
 The director issued two decisions on motion, first concluding that the filing did not meet the requirements 
of a motion to open pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) and subsequently issuing a second decision addressing 
the merits of the petitioner's motion. 
Page 3 
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 classiQ the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a gymnastics coach. 
Although the petitioner competed several years ago, the petitioner has exclusively coached for the past 
several years. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h) requires the beneficiary to "continue work in the 
area of expertise." While a competitor and a coach certainly share knowledge of gymnastics, the two 
rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are not the same 
area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in Federal Court. See Lee v. INS., 237 F. 
Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Moreover, as the petitioner must demonstrate sustained national or 
international acclaim, his accomplishments in the 1980s and early 1990s as a competitor could not 
serve, by themselves, to establish his eligibility for this classification. The duration of the 
petitioner's experience as a coach suggests that he has had ample time since switching from 
competing to coaching to establish his acclaim as a coach. As such, we will focus on his more recent 
accomplishments as a coach. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. Initially, prior counsel asserted that the 
petitioner trained gymnasts, including- and "who have gone on to 
~erform at the highest levels." The ~etitioner ~rovided two nearlv identical letters sinned bv Ms. 
- and asserting &at their personal coaches, 
 and hired 
the petitioner to coach them "on a regular basis" in 2003 and 2004 to prepared for the Olympics. 
In his initial letter however, 
 asserts: "In 2004 I coached two gymnasts - - 
and - to the Olympics in Athens." (Emphasis added.) He further states that he 
learned of the petitioner in 2003 and persuaded him to "train with us several times during the year" and 
provided experience "which was helpful to us in placing not one but two athletes on the Olympic 
Team." He concludes that he did not hire the petitioner full time until 2005, which is after the 
Olympics were over. While the petitioner provided newspaper articles about other gymnasts 
identifying himself as their coach, the petitioner did not submit a single article identifying him as the 
coach of either or - 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
On August 6,2008, the director issued a request for additional evidence, advising that the petitioner had 
not demonstrated that he had served as the head coach for an 
 In response, prior 
counsel asserted that the initial letters from and 
 as letters from 
and a newly submitted joint letter from 
 , establish that the 
petitioner "was involved in the day to day coaching" of those Olympic medalists. 
In his initial letter, 
 asserts only that while the petitioner worked for 
 he "played a 
vital role in the success of their gymnasts . . . 2004 Olympians 
 and -1 
identical to a paragraph in a letter fkom 
4 
(Ellipsis in original.) We note that the paragraph in which that sentence appears is nearly 
The 
origin of this a arentl 
 rewritten language is unknown, although we acknowledge that both Mr. 
-attest to this information with their signatures.  either nor Mr. 
explain, however, how they know of the petitioner's precise role in the training of Ms. 
and- 
In their new letter, and assert that the petitioner began working at their gym as a 
"guest coach" in 2003, who visited "on a regular basis to help design our international development 
system." They acknowledge, however, that they are the headcoachis; that they are the only coaches 
allowed on the competitive floor; and that newspapers will identify them, and not the petitioner, as the 
athlete's head coaches. They affirm, nevertheless, that the petitioner "was invaluable" in training Ms. 
-and- 
On motion, the petitioner submitted gymnastic results for athletes allegedly coached by the petitioner 
and published materials about athletes competing at the regional level coached by the petitioner. The 
petitioner also resubmits the previously submitted letters. Counsel requested that the letters from Ms. 
and 
 be treated "as corroborating objective documentary evidence of coaching 
and not as a letter of support from an expert expressing opinion." 
The director ultimately concluded that the factual assertions made in the letters should be verifiable 
through documentary evidence and that the record lacked athlete biographies identifying the petitioner 
as the athlete's head coach or Olympic programs or other official documentation identifjing the 
petitioner as an Olympic coach. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the letters from andwere ignored. Counsel 
further notes that t for Programs of USA Gymnastics, asserts that the 
petitioner "validated our expectations by assisting in the development of State. Regional and National 
u 
khampions at the Junior 0;ympic and Elite lever' 
 does not specify any particular gymnast 
for whom the petitioner served as head coach. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of the alien's receipt of a lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prize or award. The record contains no coaching prizes or awards issued 
to the petitioner. We acknowledge that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(4) permits the submission 
of comparable evidence where the criteria are not readily applicable. Arguably, this criterion is not 
readily applicable to coaches, who coach athletes to win awards rather than competing for awards 
themselves. Thus, we do not contest the implication in the director's request for additional evidence 
that evidence demonstrating that one of the petitioner's athletes won a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize while under the petitioner's primary tutelage could, on a case-by-case basis, serve as 
comparable evidence to meet this criterion. 
In considering "comparable" evidence, the evidence at issue must be truly "comparable" to the 
regulatory criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) such that the evidence is indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. Serving as a guest coach or an assistant coach during the preliminary 
training for a nationally or internationally recognized competition, however, is not com arable to the 
alien's own receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. and Ms. 
readily acknowledge that assistant coaches and guest coaches are not visible and do not garner 
any media attention. 
While we do not question the sincerity of an- we concur with the director 
that the petitioner's status in the coaching hierarchy, if significant, should be readily apparent in the 
biographies of the athletes, the published material about those athletes or programs or through coaching 
credentials and event identification. The record lacks any such evidence establishing that the petitioner 
served as an Olympic coach or that any athlete won an Olympic medal while primarily under the 
petitioner's tutelage. 
In light of the above, the petitioner submitted no evidence to meet the plain language requirements of 
this criterion as a coach. As the evidence submitted is not truly comparable to an award actually 
received by the petitioner, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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 classzfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
While the petitioner never claimed to meet this criterion, we note the initial submission of foreign 
language material, mostly from the 1980's, with no article dated after 1996. The translations, some of 
which are only partial, are not certified pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). They also mostly cover 
competitions where the petitioner competed and, thus, are not "about" the petitioner. In addition, they 
do not relate to his work as a coach. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit any information about the 
publications that carried these articles. As such, we cannot determine whether they are professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. The English-language materials are primarily about the 
petitioner's athletes, and not about the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not established that The 
Dedham Times or The Walpole Times are professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. On motion, the petitioner submitted an undated interview with the petitioner in what appears a 
Brazilian newspaper. The petitioner submitted no evidence that this newspaper is a professional or 
major trade journal or other major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specijication for which classijication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence relating to this criterion for the first time on appeal. Specifically, the 
petitioner submitted a September 8, 2008 "Statement" fiom Director of the Vanadzor 
Sport Complex in the Lori Region of the Republic of Armenia. According to another statement from 
- - 
the petitioner was a trainer at this complex for several years, ending in 2003. Mr. 
[The petitioner] was considered to be a member of [the] referee's collegium of Lori 
region and the RA sports gymnastics. As a referee he always conducted sports 
gymnastics championships of Lori region and the Republic of Armenia. 
does not indicate when the petitioner served as a referee. We note that the petitioner 
left Armenia in 2003, four years before the petition was filed. also does not specifj the 
duties of a referee as distinct from a judge that actually scores the gymnasts' performances. Without 
additional information, especially regarding the dates, we cannot conclude that this evidence is 
evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. We further note that the petitioner's selection 
as a referee at the complex where he works carries less weight than selection for an external judging 
position. In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the terms "original" and "major 
significance" are not superfluous and, thus, that they have some meaning. To be considered an 
original contribution of major significance in the field of coaching, it can be expected that the 
coaching methodology would be not only successful, but demonstrably novel and influential. 
We acknowledge the submission of several letters, including letters from- 
and former members of the Armenian national gymnastics team. These letters all praise the 
petitioner's ability as a coach, with some references characterizing him as a "rare find." None of the 
letters, however, provide examples of specific novel methodologies pioneered by the petitioner that 
have influenced the coaching of gymnastics. 
As stated by the director, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted 
as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Cornrn'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS 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; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS 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 of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Cornm'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have been influenced by his innovations are more persuasive than letters that 
simply repeat generalized language, such as: 
It is his coaching philosophy and technical mastery that pushes his students to the 
limits of their abilities. He is a rare find. He can easily demonstrate gymnastics skills 
to illustrate great technique for the gymnasts to emulate. This makes it easier for them 
to learn and retain.3 
Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than 
new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained 
national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that 
acclaim. 
Without evidence of his original methodology or approach and his influence on the field of coaching 
gymnastics, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Prior counsel asserted initially that the competitions attended by the petitioner's athletes serve to meet 
this criterion. No fbture filing has referenced this criterion. We find that this criterion pertains to visual 
artists, not coaches. An athletic competition is not an artistic exhibition or showcase and a coach's 
athletes are not his "work." We are also not persuaded that having one's athletes compete is 
comparable evidence to meet this criterion. Thus, the petitioner has not establish that he meets this 
criterion. 
3 
 This language appears in the letters fromand- 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence of his position as a "trainer" at the Vanadzor Sports 
Complex and a letter confirming that he was employed in an unidentified capacity at the New England 
sports Academ in Massachusetts. As evidence of the reputation of the gym where the petitioner 
trained and the petitioner submitted materials from the Internet site 
Wikipedia. The director's request for additional evidence noted that the Wikipedia page had been 
removed as an advertisemeni In response to the director's request for additional evidence, prior 
meets this criterion through his service as a guest coach providing 
training to 
 Prior counsel also criticized the director for viewing 
anyone can edit Wikipedia. While we concur with prior counsel 
that Wikipedia is unreliable: his criticism is disingenuous as it was the petitioner himself who 
submitted the Wikipedia materials as part of the initial filing. Regardless, the record contains sufficient 
independent evidence that 
 gym has a distinguished reputation nationally. 
On motion, the petitioner submitted a certificate verifying his participation in the Olympic Day Run in 
2000. The certificate does not specify his role in this event. In addition, in a September 8, 2008 
statement, asserts tha; the petitioner worked as a "senior'trainer" at the vanadzor 
complex. 
At issue for this criterion are the nature of the role the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation 
of the entity that selected him. In other words, the nature of the role itself must be such that selection 
for that role is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Without an organizational chart or other evidence as to how the petitioner's position as a senior trainer 
or coach fits within the hierarchy of his employers, we cannot conclude that the petitioner has 
established that he 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 the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
gymnastics coach 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 coach, 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. 
4 
 Reliance on Wikipedia is not favored by federal courts. See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F. 3d 909 (8" Cir. 2008). 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.