dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

PUBLIC COPY 
IN RE: 
2 
Office: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N W , Rm A3042 
Wash~ngton. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and 1rnmigratj.on 
TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 2 1 
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. 3 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 re:turned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
- 
'Z - Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary had achieved the sustained national or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the 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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. 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. 204,5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics 
as a former tennis player and current tennis coach. Much of the supporting evidence submitted with the petition 
and in response to the director's Request for Evidence (RFE) documents the beneficiary's accomplishments as a 
tennis player. The director denied the petition finding that the record did not establish that the beneficiary had 
achieved the requisite sustained acclaim as a tennis coach. The petitioner was unrepresented below. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. 
To be classified as an alien with extraordinary ability, the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary seeks 
entry into the United States "to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 11 53(b)(l)(A)(ii). An alien who intends to work as a coach in the United States cannot rely 
solely on his or her past athletic acclaim because coaching is not necessarily within every athlete's area of 
expertise. However, given the nexus between competing and coaching, 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 at 
a national or international level, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may consider the totality of the 
evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability. 
In this case, counsel contends that the director applied the wrong standard by failing to consider the 
beneficiary's accomplishments as a tennis player as evidence of his extraordinary ability. Counsel asserts 
that the beneficiary earned national acclaim as a tennis player, which he sustained through his subsequent 
work as a tennis coach. Although the director failed to consider the beneficiary's past accomplishments as a 
tennis player, we find that the record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary achieved national or 
international acclaim as an athlete or sustained such acclaim by coaching at the national or iriternational 
level. Because the AAO engages in de novo review, the AAO may deny an application or petition that fails 
to comply with the technical requirements of the law, without remand, even if the district or service center 
director does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also, 
Dor v. INS, 89 1 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
We address the evidence submitted and counsel's contentions in the following discussion of the regulatory 
criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria that 
are not addressed below. 
(5) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the beneficiary meets this criterion by virtue of his Swedish national 
championships as a junior tennis player. The record contains no primary evidence of the beneficiary's junior 
titles. In an unsigned and undated letter submitted in response to the director's RFE, Dobrivoje Stanojevic, 
Director of Tennis at the Norrkopings Tennis Club in Sweden, states that he trained the beneficiary as a junior 
and that the beneficiary "won the Swedish Championship three times and established himself as among the best 
juniors in Europe." Director Stanojevic does not state when the petitioner won these championships. An article 
printed in the May 4, 2002 edition of The Ole Miss Spirit reports that the beneficiary was ''ranked No. 1 in 
Sweden in 18-and-under singles prior to coming to the United State [sic]." The record shows that the petitioner 
came to the United States in 1999 to study and play tennis at the University of Mississippi. Even if sufficiently 
documented, the petitioner's junior championships in Sweden would only evidence his past acclaim as a young 
tennis player because they were earned at least five years before this petition was filed. 
Billy Chadwick, the beneficiary's tennis coach at the University of Mississippi, states that the petitioner "was a 
four-year letter winner and a team captain leading our team to the NCAA Final Four and a SEC Chan~pionship. 
For his efforts he was named ALL-SEC. In addition, he qualified for the NCAA Championship in both singles 
and doubles." In a letter dated April 12, 2004, President of the petitioner's Board of Directors, 
affirms that the beneficiary "excelled for Ole Miss obtaining a #I3 ranking in the country in 2002; a NCAA 
Page 4 
final sixteen, Sec West champion, and All SEC in 2001; SEC Player of the Week, Region 11 1 Doubles Finalist 
in 1999; and in the NCAA Final Four and SEC Team Champion in 1997." ~r.ktates that the beneficiary 
won these last honors in 1997 although the record indicates that the beneficiary did not start playing college 
tennis until 1999. A copy of an article entitled "Stahlberg SEC Player of the Week" from an unidentified source 
with a handwritten date of March 28, 2001, confirms that the beneficiary was named Southeastern Conference 
Men's Tenni2 Player of the Week and states that he was ranked "No. 38 in the nation in singles arid No. 18 in 
doubles." Executive Director for the United States Tennis Association (USTA) Southern Section, 
states that the petitioner took all SEC honors in 200 1 and 2002 and "earned the NCAA ranking of 13" nationally 
at one time." The record contains no primary evidence of the beneficiary's honors or rankings as a college 
player and the submitted evidence does not show that the beneficiary won any national champior~ships as an . . 
individual player during his college years. 
The record indicates that the beneficiary continued to play tennis after he graduated from college, but the record . ~ 
contains no evidence that he won anv nationallv or internationallv recomized awards or ~rizes as a i~rofessional 
- Head women's ~ennis Coach player. In the submitted printout of his electronic mail message, 
and the former Assistant Men's Coach at the University of ~sslssippi, states that after graduating, the -. 
beneficiary "went on to play professionally on the ATP  bur." Yet the record contains no evidence thal the 
beneficiary won any competitions on the ATP Tour. An unsigned letter from Ross Preston, Game Development 
Manager for Tennis New Zealand, states that the beneficiary "came to New Zealand in September 2003 to fill 
the number one position in the Browns Bay men's premier grade tennis team." ~r.ex~lains that the 
beneficiary led "the Browns Bay team to the championship for the first time in 16 years. [He] fashioned a 70% 
winning record, playing against New Zealand's leading tennis players, some with many years of Davis Cup 
experience behind them.,' Yet Mr. oes not identify "the championship" and the record contains no 
corroborative evidence that the petitioner won national competitions in New Zealand. In sum, the relevant 
evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary won awards or prizes as a tennis player in a manner 
consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. 
The record shows that the petitioner began coaching tennis in 2004. Nationally or internationally recognized 
- 
prizes or awards won by a coach's students may be evidence of a coach's eligibility 
under this criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 a French tennis player, states that 
the beneficiary coached him between time, ~r explains, 
"My results improved quickly and . . . I had [sic] received the highest ranking of my career so far, 150 on the 
ATP Tour. I also title in Dallas, TX, while working with [the beneficiary]." In a letter 
submitted on appeal, Project Manager for of the international rankings in 
men's professional during the time M was coached by the beneficiary, he 
"moved up the ATP rankings to the ATP singles race ranking of 83, and was consistently ranked near 150 on 
ATP entry-ranking list." Yet the record contains no corroborative evidence of Mr. the accomplishments while being coached by the beneficiary. Simply going on record without su~porting .- - - . . - 
documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). The record also contains no evidence that any of the beneficiary's other students have won 
national or international prizes or awards. Moreover, even if fully documented, Mr. De Chaunac's single ATP 
title would not demonstrate sustained acclaim for the beneficiary as a tennis coach. 
In review, even if the beneficiary won nationally recognized championships as a junior tennis player in Sweden, 
the record does not demonstrate that he sustained such acclaim in his subsequent five-year career as a college 
Page 5 
and professional tennis player. Moreover, although three letters improvement while 
being coached by the beneficiary, the record does not document title purportedly 
won during this time or any national or international coached by the - 
beneficiary. The record thus does not demonstrate that the petitioner won nationally or internationally 
recognized awards as a tennis player or that he coached award-winning tennis players in a manner consistent 
with the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iio Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in theJield for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner initially submitted copies of seven newspaper articles about the beneficiary as a player for the 
University of Mississippi's men's tennis team, none of which satisfjr this criterion. Three articles are undated. 
Only one article is identified as having been printed in The Ole Miss Spirit, although the other six articles appear 
to have come from University of Mississippi publications. College or university newspapers do not constitute 
professional, major trade publications or other major media because they are limited to their specific academic 
institutions, generally have only local or private circulation, and are not distributed nationally or available to the 
general public. In its RFE response, the petitioner submitted an additional article entitled "Stahlberg Helps Lift 
Tennis in Mississippi," printed from the website of Mississippi Scout and dated June 2, 2005. We cannot 
consider this article because it was published after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel states, "There was no indication in either the Request for Evidence or the Notice of Decision 
that the Texas Service Center informed thepro se petitioner of objections to the form or content of these articles 
in any way." While we recognize the difficulties a pro se petitioner may face in understanding other subtleties 
of the law, the regulation here clearly states that articles will meet this criterion only if they are dated and 
printed in "professional or major trade publications or other major media." 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(iii). This 
section of the regulation was quoted verbatim in the director's RFE. 
(iv) 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 specification for which classijkation is sought. 
Counsel does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion, but the record contains relevant evidence which 
merits brief discussion. The record indicates that the beneficiary had been employed as a tennis coach for the 
petitioner for six months before this petition was filed and also coached ~r. during this time. The 
beneficiary was also selected to coach the Mississippi Junior Davis Cup Team, but we cannot consider this 
evidence because it arose after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l2), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In a letter dated May 13, 2005, 
chairman of the Mississippi Junior Tennis Council for the USTA Southern Section, Mississippi, 
states, "It is my distinct pleasure to nominate Mr. to fill the vacant position of Head Coach for this 
year [sic] Junior DavisIJunior Fed Cup team. This team will consiste of the top junior players in the state of 
Mississippi to compete Regionally and Nationally." ~retter indicates that the beneficiary was 
selected nearly a year after the petition was filed on June 23,2004. 
Page 6 
Moreover, while coaching inevitably entails judgment of the coached athletes, duties or activities which 
nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or 
international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the occupation itself, or in a substantial proportion of 
positions within that occupation. The petitioner submitted no evidence that, at the time of filing, the beneficiary 
had judged of the performance of tennis players in a manner significantly outside the general duties of his 
position and reflective of national or international acclaim. For example, the record contains no evidence that 
the beneficiary judged national or international tennis competitions. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet 
this criterion. 
(viiij Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish the nature of the alien's role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. Where an alien has a leading or critical 
role for a section of a distinguished organization or establishment, the petitioner must establish the reputation of 
that section independent of the organization as a whole. 
In this case, counsel claims the beneficiary meets this criterion as a former tennis player for the University of 
Mississippi. ~r. the beneficiary's tennis coach at the University of ~ississi~~i, states that- the 
petitioner "was a four-year letter winner and a team captain leading our team to the NCAA Final Four and a 
SEC Championship. . . . [He] set many records at the University of Mississippi and remains as one of the all 
time Win11 ingest [sic] players in the history of the ro ram. . . . [He] excelled as an athlete, a student and as a 
leader for the team and University." -of the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics at the 
University of Mississippi, states that the beneficiary "was one of the most competitive players we have ever had 
on our tennis team and one of the reasons we have had such unbelievable success in our rankings throughout the 
nation." An undated article entitled "Netters Slug State to Claim West Crown" reports that the University of 
Mississippi men's tennis team "is ranked No. 4 nationally." Another article entitled "Stahlberg Leading Rebel 
Charge Toward Top 10" and dated March 22. 2001 reports, "The Ole Miss men's tennis team is inching toward - 
a Top 10 ranking, and one of the main reasons is the play of junior ] -leads the No. 
11 Rebels with a 12-0 record in dual matches, losing only lost [sic one set uring the win streak." The article 
further explains that "[als a freshman, he posted a 20-3 record in helping the Rebels to a Final Four appearance. 
Last year as a sophomore, he went 26-10." This evidence indicates that the beneficiary performed a leading or 
critical role for the University of Mississippi men's tennis team, which earned high national rankings during his 
enrollment at the University. 
However, even if we found the beneficiary to meet this criterion through his former role as a collegiate tennis 
player, the record does not indicate that he has sustained his past athletic acclaim in this regard through his 
subsequent work as a coach. The record indicates that the beneficiary is the Head Tennis Professional for the 
petitioner. In his June 6, 2005 letter, ~r. President of the petitioner's Board of Trustees, states that the 
beneficiary "has been a true asset to our organization. He has truly performed in a leading, vital and critical role 
for our organization. [He] is truly a unique coach with qualities that are very difficult to fincl in other 
employees." the petitioner's Manager, also explains that "[tlennis in Mississippi is in need 
of tennis coaches with international exposure to continue to lift the quality of the game locally both in 
infrastructure and player success in order to bring the state at par [sic] with states like Georgia, Florida and even 
California." However, the record contains no evidence that the beneficiary has a distinguished reputation that 
extends beyond Mississippi or the southern region of the United States. Hence, the petitioner's coaching role 
for the petitioner does not reflect national acclaim. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
We have reviewed the 16 recommendation letters from individuals who have worked with the beneficiary or 
know him personally and the support letters from two independent tennis experts submitted on appeal. We have 
quoted and referenced the letters that are relevant to the regulatory criteria discussed above. The remaining 
letters affirm the beneficiary's accomplishments as a tennis player, praise his athletic skills and personal 
qualities, but do not demonstrate his eligibility for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The record in this 
case does not establish that the petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a tennis player 
that was further sustained in his subsequent work as a tennis coach. He is thus ineligible for classification as an 
alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A), 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. tj 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.