dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
I 
20  ass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship l 
and Immigration 
FILE: , -1 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 1 8 2001 . 
EAC 06 090 52069 , 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
' Beneficiary: 
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. 8 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
wert P. Wieu, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the 
 asserts that he was a professional coach in Turkey and submits evidence of 
that employment through 1985. For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not overcome the 
grounds of denial, set forth in the notice of intent to deny and incorporated by reference into the final 
denial notice. 
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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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@)(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. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classifl the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a boxing coach. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines the following 
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. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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 or fields; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorshp of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media; 
I 
1 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
 I 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that the beneficiary has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted hs certification as a district arbitrator dated May 5, 1979 and evidence 
that he earned his trainer (coach) diploma on September 19, 1984. On June 27, 2006, the director 
issued a notice of intent to deny advising the petitioner of the ten criteria and concluding that the record 
lacked substantial documentation of acclaim. The petitioner did not respond. Thus, the director 
concluded that the petitioner had failed to overcome the lack of evidence noted in the notice of intent to 
deny. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a certification from the Director of Youth and Sport for Giresun 
Province in Turkey. The certification states that the petitioner worked in an "honorary" capacity from 
1978 through 1982 and as a "permanent" staff member fiom 1982 through 1985 with "Director of 
Youth and Sport Boxing Trainer coach duty." The certification further states that the petitioner 
engaged in "joint official sport contest with his team." The certificate then includes a list of 
competition results fiom 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983 and 1986. The result from 1986 appears to relate to 
one of the petitioner's students, although it is unclear if the petitioner was the student's coach at the 
time of the student's third place national team finish in 1986 as the certification only confirms the 
petitioner's coaching duties through 1985. The certification does not explain the petitioner's 
connection to the remaining results. The petitioner provides no explanation for his failure to respond to 
the director's notice of intent to deny. 
The statute requires extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim to establish 
eligibility for this classification. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Assuming that the beneficiary is a 
talented trainerlcoach who has worked professionally, the record does not reflect that he has attained 
any national acclaim for that talent. Specifically, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he has won 
any nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes or that his students have done so while 
primarily under his tutelage. Thus, he has not demonstrated that he meets the awards criterion set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). The petitioner has not demonstrated that his position as a coach or 
arbitrator for a provincial youth association was leading or critical or for an entity with a nationally 
distinguished reputation. Thus, he has not demonstrated that he meets the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5@)(3)(viii). In addition, it is inherent to the job of coach to evaluate one's students. Thus, such 
duties do not set the petitioner apart from any other coach and cannot serve to meet the judging 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Without evidence regarding the responsibilities of an arbitrator, 
we cannot conclude that these responsibilities serve to meet the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record contains no evidence relating to any other criterion and, as stated by the 
director, lacks the "extensive evidence" of acclaim mandated by the statute. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Finally, as stated above, the petitioner must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. 
The record contains no suggestion that the petitioner worked as a coach after 1986 or that he sustained 
any acclaim he may have enjoyed in the early 1980's at the time the petition was filed in February 
2006. 
- 
Page 5 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
boxing trainerlcoach 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. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
In addition to the grounds raised by the director, the petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that he 
is coming to the United States to continue working in his area of expertise. The AAO maintains 
plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal from or 
review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial 
decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. US. Dept. of 
Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long 
recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997; 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No ofler of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) fiom prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
fiom the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her 
work in the United States. 
The record contains no evidence regarding the petitioner's prospective employment. 
 As noted 
above, the petitioner has not demonstrated any employment in his claimed area of expertise since 
1986, 20 years prior to the filing of the petition. Thus, it is not clear that he even remains qualified 
to resume employment in this area. 
For the above stated reasons, considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.