dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
 U. S. Citizenship 
invasion of persona1 privacy 
 and Immigration 
Services 
. .- - 
LIN 06 196 52082 
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 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. 
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. 9 103.5 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. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
JDL~~ CL 
D' John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel states: "The Service erred in this decision by failing to properly weigh and consider 
the evidence submits [sic], specifically statements from recognized experts in Petitioner's field attesting 
to his accomplishments and extraordinary ability." 
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, 
60898-99 (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, filed on June 19, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a sports trainer and fitness coach. 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, 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 criteria at 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria. ' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner himself has received nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards as a sports trainer or fitness coach. Nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards won by competitive athletes coached primarily by the petitioner can also 
be considered for this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a March 20, 2006 letter from 
 who identifies himself as "a 
rofessional tennis coach" and "Head Coach of the Argentine Federation Cup Team since 1992." 
D states: 
In addition to coaching about a dozen top-ranked professional tennis players, [the petitioner] 
has trained athletes from around the world, in a variety of sports, who have achieved national 
and international championships as a result of his coaching and advice. A summary of some 
of his accomplishments includes: 
Track & field: 
Olympic Gold Medal in Seoul (1988) 4 x 400 meters 
Olympic Silver Medal in Seoul (1988) 400m hurdles 
World Champion in Tokyo (1 991) 400m hurdles 
World Champion in Tokyo (1991) 4x400m hurdles 
European Champion in Split (1990) 400m hurdles 
World Champion in Ceteborg (1995) Discus 
Olympic Silver Medal in Atlanta (1 996) Discus 
World Championships Silver Medal in Athens (1 997) Discus 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
World Champion in Tokyo (1 99 1) Fast Walk 
European Indoor Champion in Paris (1994) 800m 
European Championships Silver Medal in Helsinki (1 994) 800m 
2nd Place Grand Prix (1995) 
1 Place International Marathon in Melbourne, Australia (1 99 1) 
1" Place International Marathon in Melbourne, Australia (1 991) 
European Juniors Discus Champion (1 995) 
Swimming: 
- 
Olympic Gold Medal in Barcelona (1 992) 1 OOm Breaststroke 
Olympic Bronze Medal in Barcelona (1992) 4x100 Medley 
. - 
European Champion in Athens (1 99 1) lOOm Breaststroke 
European Champion in Athens (1991) 200m Breaststroke 
European Champion in Athens (1 99 1) 4x1 00m Medley 
Cycling: 
m- 
World Championships Bronze Medal in Switzerland (2003) 
Bodybuilding: 
WABBA World Fitness Champion in Zweibruken (1 994) 
WABBA Professional Fitness Tournament 2nd Place in Marbella 
(1 995) 
WABBA Master World Champion in Marbella (1 995) 
European Champion in Venice (1 995) 
2nd Place World Championships in Zweibruken (1 994) 
2nd Place Woild Championships in Marbella (1 995) 
WABBA European Junior Champion in Venice (1 995) 
Weiahtliftinq: 
Olympics Champions 
 and of the Belarus Olympic Team 
letter does not include an address, telephone number, or any other information through 
which he can be contacted. 
 Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner was the 
principal coach of the above athletes when they received the preceding awards. 
 Rather than 
submitting evidence of the awards and attestations from the aforementioned athletes indicating that 
their success was primarily attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner instead submitted a letter 
from a third party stating that the awards were "a result of [the petitioner's] coaching and advice." 
We note that is not from the organizations that issued these awards or from the national 
teams for which the preceding athletes competed. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Sofici, 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 includes no primary evidence of the above awards or 
evidence that they were attributable to the petitioner's coaching. A petition must be filed with any 
initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
Page 5 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
In this instance, the petitioner has not overcome the absence of primary and secondary evidence 
demonstrating that the preceding athletes won "national and international championships as a result 
of his coaching and advice" as claimed in letter. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a November 21, 2007 
letter from stating: 
I am a professional tennis player and have been competing on the ATP [Association of 
Tennis Professionals] Tour since 2004. Around the Summer of 2006, I began training with 
[the petitioner] . . . . As a professional player, I wanted to find the best trainer to work with 
me. . . . [The petitioner] is well known among players and coaches on the Tour, from all over 
the world, for his expertise and incredible success as a Trainer. So, I was fortunate that he 
started working with me about 1-112 years ago. 
In the 12-18 months I have been training with [the petitioner], my ATP ranking improved 
from about #250 in the world to a current ranking (as of November 2007) of #121! I earned 
as much prize money in the 2007 season as I did in the last three seasons combined! I am 
certain the difference in my performance is directly due to the fitness training from [the 
petitioner]. . . . I haven't changed my strokes, I haven't changed my serve, I haven't started a 
serve-and-volley technique. I'm telling you: it was my strength, stamina and fitness. And 
that it [sic] directly due to [the petitioner's] training. 
We note that the petitioner's training of which commenced in the Summer of 2006, did 
not significantly impact 
 ATP ranking until 2007. 
 A petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). While 66s letter states that his ATP ranking improved under 
the petitioner's training for the 2007 season, it does not indicate that received a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award on the ATP Tour as of the petition's filing 
date and during his training period with the petitioner. 
With regard to awards won by while under the petitioner's training, his response to the 
director's request for evidence included a four-sentence "Local Success Story" news piece in the 
Miami Herald (dated October 18, 2007) stating that won first place at the Sacramento 
Challenger tennis competition. The article further states: "[ says his success this 
year is due in part to his Coral Gables-based conditionin coach [the petitioner and his sports 
psychologist whose former clients include e" Mr. victory at the 
Sacramento Challenger post-dates the filing of the petition. A petitioner must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing. 
 8 C.F.R. 55 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no 
evidence showing that a first place victory at the Sacramento Challenger constitutes a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Page 6 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the jeld for which classijication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local or regional publication. 
Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify 
as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted the aforementioned 
October 18, 2007 "Local Success Story" news piece in the Miami Herald, an August 29,2007 article 
in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel entitled "Odesnik poised for major breakthrough," and an October 
15, 2007 article in the Sacramento Bee entitled "Odesnik making name as American hope." These 
local articles are about Wayne Odesnik and only mention the petitioner's name in passing. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion, however, requires that the published material be "about the 
alien." Nevertheless, the articles were all published subsequent to the petition's filing date. A 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this material in this 
proceeding. 
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 alliedjeld of specijication for which classification is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence 
of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, 
depends 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
2 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
Counsel's June 15,2006 letter accompanying the petition states: "The job of a world class fitness coach 
includes the ability to evaluate, analyze, and then improve the performance of the athletes he trains. . . . 
[The petitioner] has the unique ability to judge and critique players while encouraging further success 
and better performance." 
The petitioner submitted a March 25,2006 letter from 
 who ranked as high as 
1 1 th in the ATP singles rankings as of September 10,2001, stating: 
The single, most important criterion for determining the "rank" of a Fitness Coach is the 
performance of the players he trains. In that regard, [the petitioner] is among the top 1% of 
Fitness Coaches from Belarus. I base this opinion on the fact that in the last ten years, [the 
petitioner] has coached at least two dozen athletes to national and/or world championships 
and/or extraordinary improvements in ranking in at least six different sports. 
My world ranking jumped to #12 after training with [the petitioner]. Fitness, stamina, 
strength and injury prevention is as critical to a professional tennis player as her strokes. 
Professional tennis is extremely competitive. There are literally tens of thousands of dollars 
riding on each match. Therefore, players seek the very best trainers - and [the petitioner] is 
definitely among the few truly excellent professional and qualified fitness trainers. His track 
record of success speaks for itself. 
letter does not include an address, telephone number, or any other information 
through which she can be contacted. Nor does her letter identify the names of the championship 
athletes coached by the petitioner. 
 states that her "world ranking jumpeb to #12 
after training with [the petitioner]," but she does not specify the dates of her training and of her 
attainment of the #12 ranking.   here is no supporting evidence showing that the petitioner served as 
- A - - 
primary trainer or accompanied her on the ATP tour in such a capacity. In fact, 
a player profile submitted by the petitioner for 
 from the official internet site of the 
Sony Ericsson Women's Tennis Association Tour, the governing body of women's professional 
tennis, states: "Coached by -t (former ATP player from Australia); prior to 2006, was 
coached and managed by Rafael Font de Mora since age 13, for 13 years; does-officourt training 
-- - 
with 
 o the Athletes Performance ~nstitute in ~emh Arizona . . ." [Emphasis 
added.] - personal profile identifies her prior coaches and off-court trainer, but 
there is no mention of the petitioner or his impact on her ranking. 
Nevertheless, letter is not tantamount to evidence of the petitioner's 
"participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others." In an occupation 
where "judging" the work of others is an inherent duty of the occupation, such as an instructor, teacher, 
manager, coach, professor or editor, simply performing one's job related duties demonstrates 
- 
- - 
3 
 There is no evidence showing that the petitioner was training 
 in 2001 when she achieved her career- 
high ATP singles I lth ranking. 
Page 8 
competency, and is not evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
field. While a fitness coach does evaluate the physical conditioning of his client, this evaluation 
process is an inherent duty of coaches at all levels of athletic training. As a trainer, the petitioner 
prepares athletes for competition by holding practice sessions to perform drills and to improve the 
athletes' skills and conditioning. We do not find that evaluating one's athletes in this context 
constitutes participation as a judge of the work of others for purposes of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Accordingly, the petitioner's involvement in coaching and training various athletes does not fulfill 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted letters of recommendation praising his expertise and discussing his work as a 
fitness trainer. Expertise and activity in the field, however, are not necessarily indicative of athletic 
contributions of major significance. The record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made 
original contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted his field. 
A March 28, 2006 letter from 
 that he is a "pro-tennis player from Argentina" 
and that his "world ranking is #3." 
 further states: 
I have heard a lot about [the petitioner] as an excellent physical trainer and sport 
physiologist. 
What makes [the petitioner] really unique is that he is a coach who works with the raw rock 
and dirt of a player and finds the diamond underneath. Any coach can take a diamond and 
polish it. But to find them under all the dirt takes really special talent. 
I know a lot of trainers who only want to work with the stars. You know, start coaching 
players after the players have already reached the top. [The petitioner] is not only different, 
he is miles better. I mean, he is the one who takes the player to the top! 
I know about half a dozen guys who also worked with [the petitioner] and they became 
champions and stayed champions all the way through their junior careers. 
All the guys on the tour know how to hit a back-hand and a fore-hand. All the guys can 
serve, rush the net and place the bail. But week after week, match after match, year after 
year, the one thing that separates the players is strength and fitness and injury prevention. 
[The petitioner] knows how to do this. And for that I, as well as other players, coaches and 
virtually the tennis community of South America, will recognize him for the truly 
outstanding coach that he really is. 
letter does not include an address, telephone number, or any other information 
through which he can be contacted. Further, his letter does not specify the dates he trained with the 
petitioner or indicate that his tennis success was primarily attributable to the petitioner. There is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner was the principal coach of the when he achieved 
his #3 world ranking or supporting evidence of the ranking. 
A March 30, 2006 letter from 
 states that he is "the Men's National Coach of the 
United States Tennis further states: 
As a result of his extraordinary talent, [the petitioner] has been selected by the most 
prestigious, most esteemed athletes and athletics teams in Europe and South America. 
Evidence of his remarkable accomplishments is the "Who's Who" of top athletes who have 
selected [the petitioner] to be their fitness trainer: 
BELARUS TENNIS ASSOCIATION - governing body of tennis in the national 
of Belarus. 
BELARUS NATIONAL FEDERATION OF ATHLETICS -- Developed national 
fitness training program. 
NATIONAL MEDICAL SPORTS CENTER (Minsk, Belarus) - Head Physical 
Fitness Trainer for Junior and Elite athletes. Trained Belarus Olympic Teams in 
400m, Cycling and Swimming. 
WORLD FITNESS CLUB -- Zweibrucken, Germany 
SPORTS FEDERATION OF GUAYAS (Guayaquil, Ecuador) 
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE 
ECUADOR'S OLYMPIC JUDO TEAM 
Many Sports Science/Fitness Coaches are considered a success if they can coach one player 
to a Top 10 ranking, or if they can coach one national team or Olympic team in even one 
athletic event. [The petitioner] has taken over half a dozen players to these superlative 
accomplishments! He has been selected by national sports entities to coach national teams, 
Olympic Teams, Davis Cup Teams. He has trained men tennis players, women tennis 
players, cyclists, judo competitors, swimmers, sprinters, long-distance runners and fencers. . . 
He has consistently demonstrated his extraordinary ability through many players, in several 
countries and in different sports. 
letter does not include an address, telephone number, or any other information 
through which he can be contacted. Further, his letter does not specify the dates when the petitioner 
worked for the preceding organizations or trained the preceding athletes. Nor has the petitioner 
submitted letters of support from the Belarus National Federation of Athletics, the National Medical 
Sports Center, the world Fitness Club, the Sports Federation of Guyas, the International Olympic 
Committee, Ecuador's Olympic Judo Team, or - 
discussing the significance of his work and its impact in the field. Finally, there is no evidence 
Page 10 
demonstrating that the success of the preceding organizations and athletes was primarily attributable 
to the petitioner's work. 
, Head Men's Tennis Coach at the University of Miami, states: 
It is my informed and expert opinion that [the petitioner] is among the few very best (if not 
the best) and most accomplished tennis coaches in the history of sport in his home country of 
Belarus. And, he has established himself as a leading fitness coach in South America and, 
most recently, in the United States. 
The measure of success for a professional fitness coach is the reputation he has earned in his 
field from athletes and other coaches, and the record of success of the players he has assisted. 
And, using this measure, [the petitioner] is clearly an extraordinary success. 
Have you ever heard of Steve Williams? Probably not. But Steve Williams is recognized as 
probably the greatest golf caddies in the history of the sport. Why? Because he is the golf 
caddy for Tiger Woods, the greatest golfer of all time. Steve has never won a trophy, has no 
international ranking, and is never listed on a scorecard. However, because he works with 
and assists the best player, he is, by extension, the best caddy. 
Likewise with [the petitioner]: he is recognized as one of the top fitness coaches because the 
athletes he coaches are nationally and internationally ranked at the very top of their sports. 
He has trained not one or a few, but at least a dozen national and international champions of 
many countries in a multitude of athletic endeavors. His reputation is national; his 
accomplishments are at a national scale. 
With regard to the Steve Williams example mentioned above, we do not dispute that Mr. Williams is 
the caddy for a top-ranked golf professional. In the petitioner's case, however, there is no evidence 
showing that he has played a comparable primary role in the success of top athletes who have won 
nationally or internationally recognized awards in their respective sports. Without supporting 
documents showing that petitioner's role as a championship athlete's fitness trainer was principal rather 
than attenuated by others such as a head coach, sports psychologist, or dietician, we cannot accord 
substantial weight to the references who attest to the significance of the petitioner's role in his athlete's 
achievements. 
The preceding letters do not include a substantive discussion as to which of the petitioner's specific 
achievements constitute original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. The letters 
do not specify exactly what the petitioner's original contributions have been, nor is there an 
explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner may have helped various 
athletes with their skills and conditioning, there is nothing in the reference letters indicating that he 
has developed original training techniques, routines, or methodologies that have been recognized, 
widely adopted, or otherwise significantly impacted his field in a manner consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. Even if the techniques utilized by the petitioner were found to be 
original, there is nothing to demonstrate that they have had major significance in the field. For 
example, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's training techniques have been widely 
adopted throughout the sport of tennis or have influenced the way the game is played. 
In this case, the petitioner has submitted letters from impressive experts whose opinions are 
important in the sport of tennis. The letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner, 
however, are not sufficient to meet this criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not 
without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. 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 (Commr. 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. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of 
the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, 
independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that one would expect of a 
trainer or coach who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive 
documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed 
throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude 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. 
The petitioner submitted a May 5, 2006 letter from 
 Vice President, Belarus Tennis 
Association, stating: 
As a result of his superior ability and great reputation, [the petitioner] was given the distinct 
honor of being named the Sports Trainer for the Belarusian Davis Cup Team each year from 
2002 through 2005. The Davis Cup is the premier men's international team tennis 
competition. Each year, 1 13 countries send their best 4 players to this esteemed 105-year-old 
international events. It is the largest and most prestigious annual international team 
competition in the world of sports and a source of national pride. Therefore, selection as the 
Sports Trainer for this team is reserved for the single best and most accomplished Sports 
Trainer in our nation - [the petitioner]. With his guidance, the team reached the World 
Group of the Davis Cup in 2005. 
[The petitioner] was also selected to be the Fitness Trainer for the National Junior Tennis 
Team of Belarus. This team is comprised of the best young players in the country, between 
the ages of 12 and 18. [The petitioner's] .coaching and training in these age groups is 
particularly critical because of the changes in speed and strength during teenage years. This 
is often an extremely difficult adjustment period in the career of a young player. It takes a 
truly extraordinary sports professional to work with juniors players moving through these age 
groups and keep their game and fitness training in line with their physique, strength and yet 
be able to avid [sic] injuries. 
The distinction of being selected from all the trainers in the country, not once by four times 
in a row, is proof of his outstanding skill and extraordinary ability. 
letter states that the petitioner was the "Sports Trainer for the Belarusian Davis 
Cup Team each year from 2002 through 2005." However, according to the petitioner's Form 1-140, 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, and his Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent 
~esidence or Adjust Status, his "Date of Last Arrival" in the United States was November 29, 2002. 
letter does not explain how the petitioner functioned as a sports trainer for the 
Belarusian teams identified above while present in the United States during the 2003 through 2005 
period. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
letter discusses the critical nature of the petitioner's role as trainer for the National 
Junior Tennis Team of Belarus, but his letter does not include substantive information regarding the 
importance of the petitioner's role for the Belarusian Davis Cup Team. Further, the record lacks 
objective contemporaneous documentation showing that the preceding tennis teams had 
distinguished reputations during the petitioner's tenure as their sports trainer from 2002 to 2005. 
The limited documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the 
preceding teams' success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical 
role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt 
of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion 
separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the 
evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, counsel states: 
The decision . . . myopically focuses on the minutiae of "checking oft" items on a regulatory 
"laundry list" of suggested criteria. In promulgating the regulations, then-INS discussed the 
proposed rule (60 FR 297[75] (6/6/95)): 
The evidence listed [in 8 CFR §204.5(h)(3)] is intended to be a guideline for the 
Petitioner and the Service to determine extraordinary ability in order to make the 
adjudication process easier for both petitioner and the Service. The fact that an alien 
may meet three of the listed criteria does not necessarily mean that he or she meets 
the standard of extraordinary ability. The Service adjudicator must still determine 
whether the alien is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of his 
or her field ..." (Id. At 29775) (Emphasis added). 
So, clearly, merely meeting three of the suggested criteria does not, in itself, demonstrate 
extraordinary ability. Likewise, then, the alternative logic would apply: that an alien can 
demonstrate extraordinary ability even if fewer than three of the suggested criteria are met! 
The proposed rule cited by counsel was not implemented by legacy INS or USCIS. Nevertheless, 
counsel's argument "that an alien can demonstrate extraordinary ability even if fewer than three of 
the suggested criteria are met" is not supported by the statute and regulations which require 
"extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim and fulfillment of at least 
three of the regulatory criteria. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) specifically states that such evidence shall include either a 
one time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria. Further, we cannot ignore that the 
petitioner's evidence did not meet any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Counsel then argues that the petitioner's evidence should now be considered pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). Again, counsel's argument is not persuasive. This regulation 
allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation." Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory 
criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. Counsel states: 
It would not be possible to fit the "round" field of sports training and fitness into the "square 
hole" of the . . . suggested criteria in 204.5(h)(3). This case involves an "unusual and 
obscure field of endeavor" and therefore the alternative, yet equivalent forms of evidence 
submitted in this case must be considered. The field of endeavor in the instant case is sports 
training and fitness for world class athletes, primarily in individual athletic events, including 
tennis, track & field, swimming, cycling, etc. This is a narrow and fairly obscure field, 
"behind the scenes" of professional athletics. 
There is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests re-evaluation of as 
comparable evidence on appeal constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Counsel asserts that the letter from 
Francisco Montoya demonstrates the narrow and obscure nature of the petitioner's field and that the 
petitioner should be evaluated based on the ranking and success of the athletes he coached. In 
support of this contention, the petitioner submits an article in the March 2006 issue of Tennis entitled 
"The Coach." 
 This article discusses the career and achievements of 
 who it 
describes as "the most successful and influential coach of the Open era." The article states that Mr. 
of four No. 1 players - 1 
and that "[a] teacher's effectiveness is best judged by his 
students' achievements." We agree with the latter observation and note that the achievements of the 
athletes coached by the petitioner were addressed under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i). In this case, there is no reliable evidence showing that athletes coached primarily 
by the petitioner have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards comparable to 
those of the preceding four tennis players. The article in Tennis also shows that top coaches can be 
the primary subject of published material in major publications as required by the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). This article only reinforces the conclusion that the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) apply to the petitioner's field and that the very top of his field is a 
level above his present level of achievement. 
In addressing the lack of independent and objective evidence in this case, the director's decision 
stated: "While witness statements can and in this case do provide useful information, opinions 
solicited for the express purpose of supporting a visa petition cannot simply be submitted in lieu of 
independent, verifiable evidence of sustained national or international acclaim." We concur with the 
director's observation. On appeal, counsel argues that the director's statement is unfounded and that 
there is "no such regulatory or administrative restriction. The regulations anticipate situations in 
which 'comparable evidence' (including statements from experts in the field) can be submitted to 
demonstrate extraordinary ability." 
As discussed, the statute and regulations require "extensive documentation" of sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognized achievements in the field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The regulations governing the 
extraordinary ability immigrant visa classification have no requirement mandating that USCIS 
specifically accept the credibility of personal testimony, even if not corroborated. The regulations 
provide that eligibility may be established through a one-time achievement or through documentation 
meeting at least three of ten criteria. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing this 
statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary 
ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation 
than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). The criteria 
require specific documentation beyond mere testimony, such as awards, published material about the 
alien, and a high salary. As an example of the specific nature of the documentation required, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires the "title, date and author" of the published material 
about the alien. The only criterion for which letters are specifically relevant is the criterion relating to 
the alien's leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The first issue is the role the alien was hired to fill. According to 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(g) letters from employers are acceptable evidence of experience.' Whle letters may place the 
evidence for the other regulatory criteria in context, they cannot serve as primary evidence of the 
achievement required by each criterion. Further, while the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) permits 
"comparable evidence" where the ten criteria do not "readily apply" to the alien's occupation, the 
regulation neither states nor implies that opinion letters attesting to the alien's standing in the field are 
"comparable" to the strict documentation requirements in the regulations setting forth the ten criteria. 
We cannot conclude that the opinion letters submitted by the petitioner constitute "alternative, yet 
equivalent forms of evidence" to the types of evidence required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). 
We further note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2) provides: 
Submitting secondary evidence and afidavits. (i) General. 
 The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
 If a required 
document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or cannot be obtained, an 
applicant or petitioner must demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as church or 
school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence also does not exist or cannot 
be obtained, the applicant or petitioner must demonstrate the unavailability of both the required 
document and relevant secondary evidence, and submit two or more affidavits, sworn to or 
affirmed by persons who are not parties to the petition who have direct personal knowledge of 
the event and circumstances. Secondary evidence must overcome the unavailability of primary 
evidence, and affidavits must overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary 
evidence. 
We find that where the regulations require specific, objective evidence of achievements, such as awards, 
the primary evidence of such awards would be copies of the awards themselves. Secondary evidence 
might be newspaper reports of the competition results. Affidavits or letters of support attesting to 
awards, therefore, would need to "overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary 
evidence." The petitioner has not demonstrated that the required evidence is unavailable or cannot be 
obtained, and therefore the petitioner is presumed ineligible pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2). 
Counsel further states: 
Ironically, the [director's decision] cites Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec 935 . . . . In that 
opinion, the BIA noted and properly considered the "numerous affidavits in support of the 
petitioner . . . [from] the commissioner of the PGA Tour . . . as well as other experts in the 
field of golf [who] have submitted letters attesting to the petitioner's accomplishments in the 
sport. Therefore, in the instant case, the [USICIS inappropriately discounted and discredited 
the statements of recognized experts in the petitioner's field who provided detailed support of 
Petitioner's extraordinary ability. 
We note, however, that an alien would also need to submit objective evidence of the reputation of the employer to satisfy 
the specific requirement of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Page 16 
We note that in Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm. 1994), the petition was not only 
supported by impressive reference letters, but an "Official Statistics Profile" and "numerous articles" in 
national publications. In the present case, however, the record lacks primary evidence relating to the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). For example, if the petitioner had submitted copies of his 
athletes' awards or official records originating from their respective sports' governing bodies detailing 
the dates on which their awards were received while primarily under his coaching, we would have given 
substantial weight to the references who attest to the significance of the  achievement^.^ In this case, we 
cannot give the expert letters as much weight as counsel requests because the record lacks the necessary 
primary evidence of his achievements and recognition as required by the regulations. We acknowledge 
that the petitioner has submitted letters of praise from impressive experts in the sport of tennis; 
however, reputation by association cannot establish that the petitioner himself has sustained national 
or international acclaim. 
The AAO finds that claims made in the submitted expert opinions are unsupported by the initial 
evidence that is specifically required by 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3) and (4) or by other comparable 
evidence of the petitioner's achievements and recognition, despite the director's request for 
evidence. Where the regulations require specific, objective evidence in support of a petition, the 
petitioner's burden of proof is not satisfied by submitting unsupported expert testimony. 
Accordingly, the AAO gives the submitted letters less weight and finds them unpersuasive on the 
whole. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 79 1. Primary evidence of achievements and 
recognition is of far greater probative value than opinion statements from individuals selected by the 
petitioner. 
Finally, counsel argues that the petitioner should have received 84 days rather than 42 days to 
respond to the director's request for evidence. With regard to the director's issuance of a request for 
evidence, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(S)(iii) permits the petitioner to respond "within a 
specified period of time as determined by USCIS." As the regulations do not mandate any specific 
period of time in which to afford a petitioner the opportunity to respond to an RFE, counsel's 
argument is not persuasive. Even if the director had committed a procedural error by failing to 
provide the petitioner 84 days in which to respond to the October 18, 2007 request for evidence, it is 
not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. The petitioner has in 
fact supplemented the record on appeal as of June 13, 2008 (more than seven months later), and 
therefore it would serve no useful purpose to remand the case simply to afford the petitioner the 
opportunity to supplement the record with new evidence. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself 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 is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
5. 
Similarly, if the petitioner had provided evidence of his income, we would give substantial weight to experts testifiing as to 
whether the income constitutes comparable income with those at the top of the field. We acknowledge that the petitioner 
does not claim to meet the remuneration criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ix), but merely provide this example 
to show how expert testimony can assist in the adjudication of a petition seeking eligibility under this exclusive 
classification. 
Page 17 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international 
level. 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. tj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.