dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

(b)(6)
DATE: 
FEB 0 6 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service� 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
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. § 1153(b )(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/Jwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
t�t::��tmtive Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
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. § 11 53(b)(l)(A), 
which makes visas available to aliens who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through 
sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their 
field through extensive documentation. 1 The director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied 
the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C. P.R § 204. 5(h)(3), which requires documentation of 
a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a May 17, 2014 letter contesting the director's decision. The 
petitioner asserts that he meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ii), and 
submits additional evidence pertaining to the regulatory criterion at 8 C. P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(iii). In 
addition, the petitioner submits a May 5, 2014 letter of support from Level 5 
coach of the , stating that he coached the petitioner at 
_ _ _ 
and that the petitioner served as a positive role model 
for others on the team. The petitioner also submits swim results for the 
in Michigan showing that he placed tenth in the 
competition. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for 
the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence 
of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C. P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three 
of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the 
field of endeavor, and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F. R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 
1 According to information on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last 
admitted to the United States on July 7, 2013 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 H.R. 723 101 51 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internati onally recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) (discussing a 
two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of 
criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 
F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (91h Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawa the , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that USCIS examine s "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. INTENT TO CONTINUE WORK IN THE ARE A OF EXPERTISE IN THE U.S. 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seek to continue work in his area of expertise 
in the United States. See section 203(b )(l)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(5). On the Form 1-
140 petition, the petitioner left blank his "Occupation" in Part 5 and his "Job Title" and descr iption 
in Part 6, "Basic Information About the Proposed Employment." 
In a February 12, 2014 letter submitted in response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the 
petitioner stated: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
I will seek employment as an ; putting my talent and knowledge to benefit 
aspiring young athletes in the field of swimming for this wonderful country. 
I have experience in teaching of professional techniques, physical and mental preparation of 
athletes from different levels, beginners, intermediate, advanced and professional. I would 
like to emphasize my personal experience as a student-athlete and use it as a role model to 
motivate talented young people to develop the sport and use it as a tool for development in 
life. 
In his May 17, 2014 letter submitted on appeal, the petitioner further states: "My intention in 
migrating to United States is to seek employment as a swimming coach for a university, or school to 
develop champions that will represent the United States in future competitive swimming events." 
As evidence of his eligibility for at least three of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(3), 
the petitioner submitted documentation of his athletic accomplishments as a competitive swimmer 
from the Although a swimming coach and a competitive swimmer may 
share knowledge of the sport, 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. In Lee v. J.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
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 coach. 
/d. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In this matter, there is no evidence 
establishing that the petitioner intends to continue working in the United States as a competitive 
swimmer. Moreover, the petitioner's statements are clear that he intends to work as a swimming 
coach. Accordingly, the petitioner must satisfy the statutory requirement at section 203(b )(1)(A)(i) 
of the Act as well as the regulatory requirements at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3) throug h his 
achievements as a coach. 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing that he received internationally recognized awards 
as a competitive swimmer. For example, the petitioner won a gold medal as a competitor in the 200 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
meter butterfly event at the As previously 
discussed, the field of endeavor in which the petitioner intends to work in the United States is coaching. 
There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner seeks to work in the United States as a 
competitive swimmer. Awards resulting from the petitioner's success as a competitive athlete cannot 
be considered evidence of his national or international recognition as a coach. Again, the statute and 
regulations require that the petitioner seek to continue work in his area of expertise in the United 
States. See section 203(b)(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(5). See also Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. 
Supp. 2d at 914. Accordingly, awards won by the petitioner as a competitive swimmer in the 
do not meet the elements of this regulatory criterion for purposes of establishing his extraordinary 
ability as a coach. 
As there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has received nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in coaching, the petitioner has not established that he 
meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in assoc iations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director determined that the petitioner had established eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
For the reasons outlined below, a review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the 
petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language 
of this criterion and we withdraw the director's determination on this issue. The AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); 
Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Da r v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989). 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he competed as member of the 
team at the In addition, the petitioner submitted letters from the 
General Secretary of the and the President of the 
stating that he swam for the national team. The petitioner, however, 
did not submit documentary evidence showing that membership on the national swim 
team required outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Regardless, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the "alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought." In this case, the field for 
which classification is sought is coaching. There is no evidence showing that the petitioner seeks to 
continue work in the United States as a competitive swimmer. As previously discussed, the statute and 
regulations require that the petitioner seek to continue to work in his area of expertise in the United 
States. See section 203(b )(1)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). See also Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. 
Supp. 2d at 914. Accordingly, the petitioner's team memberships that were 
based on his athletic achievements as a competitive swimmer do not meet the elements of this 
regulatory criterion for purposes of establishing his extraordinary ability as a coach. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted articles in the Spanish language in 
and uncertified English language translations of the articles. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3) provides in pertinent part: "Any document containing foreign language submitted to 
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language 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 addition, the petitioner submitted a May 19, 2014 "INTERPRETER CERTIFICATION" from 
statin g: "As the interpreter, I certify that I am fluent in English and the following 
language: Spanish. I further certify that I have accurately and completely translated all documents 
presented for the purpose of this application." Although the record contains the preceding 
"INTERPRETER CERTIFICATION," it is unclear which of the submitted articles, if any, to which 
the translation certification pertains. The submission of a single translation certification that does 
not specifically identify the document or documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.P.R . § 103.2(b )(3). Because the petitioner failed to submit 
certified translations for each article, we cannot determine whether the evidence supports the 
petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight 
in this proceeding. 
Furthermore, there is no circulation eviden'ce showing that are 
major media. Moreover, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "p ublished material 
about the alien ... in the field for which classification is sought." In this case, the field for which 
classification is sought is coaching. While the submitted articles appear to be about the petitioner 
and his competitive swimming accomplishments, there is no evidence indicating that the petitioner 
seeks to continue work in the United States as a swimmer. None of the articles appear to be about the 
p etitioner relating to his work as a coach. Again , the statute and regulations require that the petitioner 
seek to continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of 
the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(5). See also Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. Accordingly, 
published material solely about the petitioner's athletic achievements as a competitive swimmer does 
not meet the elements of this regulatory criterion for purposes of establishing his extraordinary ability as 
a coach. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's or iginal scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director' s 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. When an appellant fails to offer argument 
on an issue, that issue is abandoned. Sepulveda v. US. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th 
Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2 7312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 
2011) (plaintiffs claims abandoned when not raised on appeal). Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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 his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the eviden ce in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeav or," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204. 5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits deter mination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought? 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127 , 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 
381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final 
merits determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see 
also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).