dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

(b)(6)
DATE : AUG 1 2 201S 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Adm inistrati ve Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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)(J )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If yo u believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to recons ider our decision 
and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5. Motions must be 
filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-2908) within 33 days of the date of this decision. The Form I-
290B web page (www.uscis.g ov/i-290b) contains the latest infom1ation on fee, filing location, and other 
requirement s. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
j(S£)---?--
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classifY the beneficiary 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. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A), which makes visas available to beneficiaries who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The director determined 
that the petitioner 
had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.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 brief and previously submitted documentary evidence. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree that the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility 
for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying 
evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.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 the beneficiary is one of the 
small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that the beneficiary 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) ofthe Act states, in pertinent pru1, 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, m1s, 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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. I d. ; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the beneficiary's achievements 
in the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient 
qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however , does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification . See Kazarian v. USCIS , 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satis:f)'ing the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USC IS, 
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 Chawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that users examines "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. ANALYSIS 
A. Previously Approved Nonimmigrant Petitions 
The petitioner asserts the director did not give sufficient weight to the beneficiary's previously approved 
nonimmigrant petitions. USCIS has approved 0-1 and P-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions filed on behalf 
of the beneficiary. The director concluded that the prior P-1 approvals do not preclude USCIS from 
denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. The director 
noted that many I -140 immigrant petitions are denied after US CIS approves prior nonimmigrant 
petitions. See, e.g. Q Data Consulting. Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US 
Dept. ofJustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989). The director 
then stated that USCIS is not required to approve applications or 
petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have 
been erroneous. See, e.g., Afatter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Cornm'r 
1988). Finally, the director asserted that USCIS need not treat acknowledged errors as binding 
precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. A1ontgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 
U.S. 1008 (1988). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
On appeal, the petitioner characterizes the director's analysis as disingenuous given the multiple prior 
approvals and the director's failure to address the prior 0-1 with the same petitioner. We do not read 
the director's decision as concluding that the prior approvals were necessarily in error. With respect to 
the P-1 s, the prior approvals do not preclude US CIS from denying the current immigrant visa petition. 
The regulatory requirements for the immigrant visa classification the petitioner seeks on behalf of the 
beneficiary and the P-1 nonimmigrant visa are significantly different. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(p)(4)(i)(B) provides that "[a] person who is a member of an internationally recognized 
entertainment group ... may be granted P-1 classification based on that relationship .... " The 
regulation further defines "internationally recognized" to mean "having a high level of achievement in a 
field evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered, to 
the extent that such achievement is renowned, leading, or well-known in more than one country." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(3). The regulation relating to the immigrant classification, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
however, defines extraordinary ability in any field 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." As such, the 
beneficiary's approval for a nonimmigrant visa as a member of an internationally recognized 
entertainment group under the standard of"having a high level of achievement ... substantially above 
that ordinarily encountered" is insufficient to demonstrate his individual eligibility for an "extraordinary 
ability" immigrant visa as a coach. While the 0-1 nonimmigrant standards are more similar to the 
classification the petitioner now seeks on behalf of the beneficiary, we agree with the director that the 
prior approval of the similarly phrased nonimmigrant visa does not require us to approve the immigrant 
visa. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc., 293 F. Supp. 2d at 25; IKEA US, 48 F. Supp. 2d at 22; Fedin 
Brothers Co. Ltd, 724 F. Supp. at 1103. 
B. Issues on Appeal 
The issue of whether the beneficiary qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability as either a coach or an 
athlete through direct or comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), (4), is a separate 
question from whether he seeks to work in the United States within his area of expertise pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). As such, our analysis will address the following questions: 
• Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary can satisfY the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x) as either a coach or as an athlete; 
• Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x) do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, which would enable the beneficiary to 
rely on comparable evidence according to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4); 
• Whether the petitioner has submitted evidence that is comparable pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4); and 
• Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary is coming to the United States to 
continue work in the area of expertise pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
An athlete who is now coaching a sport is discussed within two USCIS policies. The petitioner cites to 
an administrative AAO decision in support of its position relating to a nexus between the beneficiary's 
athletic and coaching record. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not 
similarly binding. Nevertheless, Chapter 22.2(i)(l)(C) of the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual 
(AFM), which pertains to an extraordinary athlete who asserts that coaching is within his area of 
expertise, provides similar analysis, stating: 
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international acclaim 
as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching /managing at a 
national level, adjudicators can consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an 
overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that we can conclude 
that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of expertise. 
This passage allows that if the petitioner first demonstrates that the beneficiary is eligible as an 
extraordinary athlete (under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or (4) with evidence indicative of recent acclaim), 
and the beneficiary is coaching national or international-level competitors , then USCIS may find that 
the beneficiary is an alien of extraordinary ability whose area of expertise includes coaching under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
C. Analysis 
1. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor . 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the beneficiary 
is the recipient of the prizes or the awards. The clear regulatory language requires that the prizes or 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized. 
Within the director's decision, he first noted that the beneficiary's awards were all as a competitor rather 
than a coach. The petitioner does not contest that finding on appeal. The director then listed the 
beneficiary's achievements relating to this criterion and questioned whether a second or third place 
finish constitutes a prize or award. The director further concluded that titles are not prizes or awards 
and concluded that the supporting evidence did not establish that any of the honors were nationally or 
internationally recognized. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director failed to take into account 
that "Russia has been widely acknowledged for decades among the world leaders and innovators in the 
complex sport of international gymnastics and acrobatics" and is "one of the world's largest countries, 
which further underscores the significance of[the beneficiary's] achievements." 
We withdraw the director 's implication that the beneficiary's placements in competitions do not qualify 
as prizes or awards , as second and third place finishes in athletic competitions generally result in a silver 
1 
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)
l1l0N-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
or bronze medal. We view such achievements as potentially qualifYing evidence under this criterion. 
With respect to the assertion on appeal, however, that the reputation and size of Russia demonstrate the 
significance of the beneficiary's awards, these factors do not demonstrate that every gymnastic or 
acrobatic award at each competition in Russia is nationally or internationally recognized. It is the 
petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the specific awards the beneficiary won are nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
The petitioner does not contest that the beneficiary's Master of Sports title is not a prize or award. 
Several of the beneficiary's remaining certificates are from the region or city and the State 
. The record contains no evidence that these prizes are either nationally or 
internationally recognized. The record also contains certificates from the Armed Forces ofthe Russian 
Federation and the Championship of Russia. Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence of the 
beneficiary's first place team finish at the identified as an international tournament. The 
petitioner submitted evidence pertaining to the Honorable Master of Sports of Russia title and the 
which the , an affiliate of the 
, sponsors. While the beneficiary's sports title is not qualifying 
itself, the requirements for receiving that title are relevant to the significance of the beneficiary's 
awards. 
The record contains a document from an unidentified source entitled ' The 
latter document states that the tournament "is the only international acrobatic gymnastics competition in 
[the] Russian Federation" and allows participants to "acquire a title of Master of Sports on the 
international level." As the petitioner has not provided the source of this material, it has little 
evidentiary value. On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief article about the posted 
on ' website characterizing the participants as "truly the best of the best" and noting 
that "[m]any World Champions and Medalists are gracing the white and red competition floor." 
The regulations for granting the Honorable Master of Sport of Russia title indicate that the qualifying 
score is 150 points. A first place team finish in a European cup is 35 points, a first place finish at a 
Russian championship is 15 points, and there are no points for second and third place finishes in 
Russian championship events. Accordingly, the record does not establish that the beneficiary 
accumulated 150 points. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's Master of Sport 
of Russian Acrobatics is the same title as the one for which the petitioner provided the regulations, the 
Honorable Master of Sport of Russia. Without evidence that the regulations pertain to the beneficiary's 
title, they do not establish the significance of the beneficiary's achievements that resulted in his title. 
In light of the above, the most probative evidence the petitioner has submitted to document the 
significance of the beneficiary's awards consists of the coverage of the 
The record does not establish the significance of coverage on this website. For example, the petitioner 
has not established whether the website covers all sanctioned competitions at any level or just a 
select group of elite tournaments. The broad assertions regarding the caliber of the participants in 2010 
are insufficient to establish that the awards at this competition in 2002 were nationally or internationally 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECED£¥TDECISION 
Page 7 
recognized. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion as 
either a coach or an athlete. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations 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 orfields. 
The director's RFE offered the petitioner an opportunity to clarify whether it was submitting 
evidence relating to this criterion. The petitioner's response did not expressly address this criterion 
and the director's final decision did not discuss it. On appeal, the petitioner asserts 
only that the 
director did not give sufficient weight to the beneficiary's membership on the 
or the "rigorous selection process" of 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisf)r. First, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that the beneficiary is a member of an association in his field. Second, the petitioner must 
demonstrate both of the follov.ring: (1) that the associations utilize nationally or internationally 
recognized experts to judge the achievements of prospective members to determine ifthe achievements 
are outstanding, and (2) that the associations use this outstanding determination as a condition of 
eligibility for prospective membership. It is insufficient for the petitioner to indicate that the beneficiary 
was admitted to the association because of his outstanding achievements; the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievements of all prospective members. Finally, employment, 
even in a competitive field, is not a membership in an association. 
Regarding the _ the petitioner did not submit evidence that 
establishes that membership with this organization meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. First, the petitioner has not documented the beneficiary's membership on the national team. 
While the beneficiary did compete internationally, the petitioner did not document how many Russian 
athletes competed at the or whether they constituted a single national team for the team 
event. Not every athlete who competes at an international event undergoes the type of national 
selection process that occurs for major international competitions such as the Olympics. Without 
evidence documenting the selection criteria for Russians competing at the the petitioner 
has not established that the beneficiary was a member of a national team that requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. 
Regarding the beneficiary's employment with within the RFE, the director informed 
the petitioner that employment does not constitute membership in an organization. The petitioner did 
not offer any rebuttal to this determination by the director within the RFE response or on appeal. The 
evidence the petitioner submitted is an unsigned employment letter the petitioner filed with the petition, 
a second letter in response to the RFE, and media related documents from 
The unsigned May 17, 2012 lists the dates of the beneficiary's positions v.rithin the organization. The 
August 29, 2014 letter from . Artistic Director at _ asserts that recruiters 
search for exceptional artists to employ, but does not discuss any level of membership within the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
company. As stated above, employment with an organization, even a distinguished, competitive one, 
does not constitute membership in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). As 
such, the petitioner has not established a qualifying membership with 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not satisfied this criterion's requirements through the 
beneficiary 's accomplishments as a coach or an athlete. 
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. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the 
published material must be about the beneficiary and the contents must relate to the beneficiary 's work 
in the field under which he seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also 
appear in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Professional or major trade 
publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as other major media , the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and be published in a 
predominant national language. 
The director found that the petitioner did not satisfy this criterion. The published material on record 
relating to the beneficiary's work as a coach appears in the 
newspaper and on its website. The director noted that the petitioner has not submitted evidence to 
establish the newspaper 's circulation statistics are high relative to other similar forms of media; nor did 
it submit evidence demonstrating high levels of Internet traffic associated with the publication 's website 
as compared to other forms of web-based news outlets. The petitioner does not specifically contest this 
conclusion on appeal and the record supports the director's determination . 
With respect to the beneficiary's achievements as an athlete, on appeal , the petitioner references the 
beneficiary's appearances as a member of . performers on 
and on the The record lacks evidence demonstrating that an appearance 
on either of these venues was about the beneficiary and related to his work . Instead, the evidence 
reflects that these appearances were about . See generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2008 
WL 10697512 , *3 (D. Nev. 2008) (upholding a fmding that articles about a show are not about the 
actor). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not documented that the beneficiary meets this criterion either as 
a coach or an athlete. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signtficance in the.field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. Qualifying contributions must be original and have already been realized rather than being 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 9 
potential, future contributions. The final requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major 
significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor 
Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3 rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 
15, 2003). Contributions of major significance connotes that the beneficiary's work has significantly 
impacted the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. 
The petitioner initially asserted that the evidence of the accomplishments of the beneficiary's students 
and reference letters were sufficient to meet this criterion. The director's RFE requested that the 
petitioner provide more detailed evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets the requirements of 
this criterion. The petitioner's response discussed the beneficiary's achievements as a coach and athlete 
but did specifically assert that those achievements constitute contributions of major significance; rather, 
the petitioner focused on how the letters established the beneficiary's stature within the gymnastics 
community. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion 
concluding that the letters focused on the beneficiary's various roles rather than explaining how his 
work has been either original or of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the beneficiary "has a sustained record of significant contributions 
in his field throughout his lengthy career in the U.S. and internationally as a competitive athlete, coach, 
and performer on behalf of major prestigious organizations." While the petitioner indicates the 
performance of the beneficiary's students both in his home country and in the United States constitutes 
a "record of significant contributions in his field," he has not explained how the performance of those 
the beneficiary has coached has made a significant impact in the field as a whole. Regardless of the 
field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires 
evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). We will discuss the accomplishments of the 
beneficiary's students in this context. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted letters from three Russian athletes who discuss the beneficiary's role 
in their accomplishments. . explains that he won junior and senior division Russian 
Championships in and .. a European Championship in the and a 
prize at the World Games. explains that the beneficiary competed with him and 
served as his assistant coach in The petitioner submits results for a event, 
when he was not under the beneficiary's tutelage. 
indicates that he won junior and adult Russian championships in and a 
European Championship in the . Russian prizes in and 
was runner up at the World Games. affirms that the beneficiary was the assistant 
coach of entire team in The petitioner submitted results for 
after the beneficiary's time as assistant coach. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§JON 
Page 10 
The third athlete, explains that the beneficiary was his partner and a sportsman 
instructor acting in the role of trainer. lists similar awards to those and 
include in their letters, including the Russian Championship in The petitioner did 
not provide any results for 
The petitioner did not provide evidence of the actual awards received while working with the 
beneficiary. While the petitioner did submit the beneficiary's team award, it does not list his 
teammates. Moreover, the beneficiary's work record book reflects that he worked as sportsman-
instructor starting in and as a coach as of September Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary's students won awards in or that he was their principal coach 
leading up to the tournament. 
Relating to the beneficiary's work in the United States, the petitioner provides photographs of the prizes 
or awards of the beneficiary's students. At issue is whether the petitioner demonstrated the awards of 
the beneficiary's students are at a level such that coaching students to reach that level may be 
considered a contribution of major significance in the field as a whole. The petitioner submitted 
photographs and materials from its own website reflecting second place level five finishes for the 
petitioner's team at the state level and a third place finish at a regional event. One of the beneficiary's 
students, ranked first in a state meet in and another student, ranked 
fourth. This evidence demonstrates that the petitioner's level five team is successful and the beneficiary 
is a successful coach of young gymnasts. The petitioner has not, however, established that coaching 10 
and 11 year old students to succeed at the state and regional level is original or of major significance in 
the field of coaching. 
The petitioner also indicates that the letters from leading gymnastics coaches and professionals confirm 
his sustained international standing as an athlete of extraordinary ability and attest to his original 
contributions to gymnastics. The letter from Vice President of Program at 
does not describe how the beneficiary's coaching accomplishments are original or how he 
has impacted the field. Instead, she indicates the beneficiary is an asset to their program and explains 
how admitting the beneficiary as a permanent resident would benefit the United States. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted new letters for consideration under this 
criterion. The letter from Assistant Coach of Men's Gymnastics at the 
indicates that there is a shortage of professional men's gymnastics coaches in 
the United States, which negatively impacts the United States' ability to compete at a high level 
internationally. Assuming the beneficiary's coaching skills are unique, the issue properly falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the employment certification process. Section 
212(a)(5)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A); 22 C.F.R § 656.1(a)(l). It is not enough to be 
skillful and knowledgeable and to have others attest to those talents. The petitioner must demonstrate 
the beneficiary's impact in his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. however, does not describe 
the manner in which the beneficiary has already contributed to the field such that he has influenced the 
field as a whole. Although the petitioner also submitted letters from an Olympic gold medalist and a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§JON 
Page II 
correspondent for an international gymnastics magazine, neither letter identifies the beneficiary's 
contributions in the field that are of major significance. 
It is not sufficient for the beneficiary to coach a well-trained team, or have mastered the methodologies 
in developing young athletes. To meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary has 
made a significant impact within the field. The record lacks evidence of such an impact, such as 
documentation that the beneficiary has developed new training methods, or new gymnastics maneuvers 
that have propelled his students in the national or international rankings. 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identifY contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9
1
h eir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th eir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reiterated the conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to (the beneficiary's] 
contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be 
disregarded simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter ~[S-A-, 22 r&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 
2000) (citing Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 
1998); Matter ofDass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211,218 
(BIA 1985)). The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 
1332. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered. While such 
letters can provide important details about the beneficiary's skills, they cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(eornm'r 1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding the beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the beneficiary's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of 
V-K-, 24 r&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purpmt to be 
evidence as to "fact" but rather is admissible only if it will assist the trier of fact to understand the 
evidence or to determine a fact in issue). users may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Jd. at 795; see also Matter 
ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Cornm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ~[California , 
14 r&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l eomrn'r 1972)). See also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 (concluding that 
USeiS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field was 
not arbitrary and capricious). 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary's 
accomplishments are original or that they have impacted the field at a level consistent with a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
contribution of major significance. Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets 
the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and the role's 
matching duties. A critical role is one where the beneficiary has notably impacted the activities of the 
organization or establishment. The beneficiary's performance in this role should establish whether the 
role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that 
the organizations or establishments have a distinguished reputation. While neither the regulation nor 
precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary 
defines distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence."2 Dictionaries are not of 
themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. 
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). 
Regarding the beneficiary's leading or critical roles as a coach, the petitioner relies on the beneficiary's 
work with the 
where the beneficiary was a student, a sportsman­
instructor, and, subsequently, a coach from September 2002 to June 2003. The petitioner initially 
submitted a foreign language letter and English translation from this organization's Director, 
_ indicates the requirements for a coach are: (1) an outstanding career as an 
athlete; (2) a title of Master of Sports of Russia; (3) an advanced degree in sports education; and ( 4) a 
minimum of three years of experience. While asserts that the staff was "delighted" when 
the beneficiary accepted a position at the school, does not explain where the beneficiary 
fit within the entity's overall hierarchy or how, during the nine months he worked as a coach, he 
impacted the school. As discussed above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary was 
the coach for a Russian athlete who competed successfully at the national level while primarily under 
the beneficiary's tutelage. 
The petitioner also asserted the beneficiary's eligibility based on his coaching at the 
The only evidence relating to this institution is a mention of it in the petitioner's letter submitted with 
the petition and in the beneficiary's official work record. Neither form of evidence establishes the 
nature of the role the beneficiary performed for this institution beyond providing the title, "Coach -
Teacher." As the record does not document the number of coaches at the organization, how the 
beneficiary fit within the company's overall hierarchy, or his ultimate impact while there, the petitioner 
has not satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion with respect to 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's athletic leading or critical roles include his 
position with , the 
2 See http://,vww.merriam-webster.com/dictionarv/distinguished, accessed on August 11, 2015, and incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
in addition to mentioning the Master of Sport designation and the significance of the The 
petitioner does not explain how the beneficiary's title and performance at a tournament demonstrate a 
specific leading or critical role for an organization or establishment. 
indicates the beneficiary started attending the municipal institution at the age of six and 
performed for many years at the national and international level. does not further 
describe the role the beneficiary performed for this organization as an athlete. Successfully competing 
as one of several student athletes while attending a sports school that routinely prepares students for 
national and international competitions is not a leading or critical role for the school. 
Regarding the beneficiary's role at , the petitioner initially submitted an employment 
history letter dated May 17, 2012 that lists the jobs the beneficiary has held with the company and does 
not discuss any leading or critical role the beneficiary performed for the organization. The petitioner 
also provided evidence relating to the beneficiary's nonimmigrant petitions approved on behalf of 
, in addition to the organization's advertising materials containing general information 
about the beneficiary, and other information associated with this organization. The petitioner responded 
to the director's RFE with the letter from the Artistic Director at l. 
discusses the competitive standards to be hired to work for , and describes the 
beneficiary's role as part of the opening and closing act. He also confirms the skills and experience 
needed to perform in the beneficiary's positions of a charivari and teeterboard member of the troupe. 
does not explain how the beneficiary's role differentiated him from the numerous other 
performers working for ~ concludes the beneficiary is passionate about 
transferring his knowledge to others. does not, however, indicate how the beneficiary fit 
within the overall hierarchy of his troupe or the beneficiary's impact on the 
organization. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion through the 
beneficiary's achievements as a coach or as an athlete. 
Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of meeting three of the criteria as 
a coach or an athlete. 
2. Comparable Evidence 
Within the initial filing brief, the petitioner indicates "the awards won by him are the medals won by the 
athletes he coached ... " Within the RFE response, the petitioner describes the awards won by those the 
beneficiary coached as "comparable to a prize awarding national or international recognition." On 
appeal, the petitioner states that the director failed to consider such awards under the comparable 
evidence provision at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Although the RFE response does allude to a coach being 
credited with his athlete's awards as comparable evidence, the director did not address this issue within 
his decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 14 
The petitioner asserts that evidence relating to the beneficiary as a coach, based on his student's 
achievements, is qualifying comparable evidence. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a 
petitioner to submit comparable evidence if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) do not readily apply to his occupation and states: "If the above standards 
do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility." Further, the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) at Chapter 
22.2(i)(l )(A) provides in pertinent 
part: 
The petitioner should explain clearly why it has not submitted evidence that would 
satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the 
evidence it has submitted is "comparable" to that required under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3). 
It is the petitioner's burden to explain why certain regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to the 
beneficiary's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence 
required at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). As the petitioner has not attempted to demonstrate that 
certain regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation, the petitioner may not rely on comparable evidence to qualify for this immigrant 
classification. 
Regardless, if the petitioner had demonstrated the eligibility to rely on comparable evidence, it would 
still not satisfy the prizes or awards criterion with comparable evidence. For the petitioner to establish 
the awards of the beneficiary's students are comparable to the prizes or awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), it must also document that the student awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized and that the students won the awards while primarily under the beneficiary's tutelage. For 
the reasons discussed above under the contributions criterion, the petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the beneficiary's students have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards while 
primarily under his tutelage. 
3. Continuing in the Area of Expertise 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary should be able to claim coaching as his area of expertise 
based partly on his achievements as a competitor, and partly on the performance of those he coaches. In 
order to reach the issue of whether the beneficiary has satisfied the requirements at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5), the petitioner must demonstrate either (1) that the beneficiary qualifies under the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) as a coach, or (2) that he qualifies with recent acclaim as an athlete or as 
a competitor and coaches at the national level. See AFM Chapter 22.2(i)(l )(C). The petitioner, 
however, did not submit probative evidence that the beneficiary qualifies for the classification as a 
coach or as a competitor. Consequently, we do not need to reach the issue of whether the beneficiary is 
coaching at the national level. Nevertheless, the beneficiary is coaching level five students that have 
competed regionally. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary's students have 
competed at the national level while primarily under his tutelage. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the beneficiary 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 evidence 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 endeavor," 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 not satisfied 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 determination 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.3 
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 qf 
Otiende , 26 I&N Dec. at 128. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
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 
F.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.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA 
§§ l03(a)(l) , 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C:F.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).