dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0 6 2~j 
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: 
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. 
V 
s~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary 
has earned the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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 field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. !j 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that the beneficiary has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top level. 
This petition, filed on April 18, 2003, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a rowing coach. At the time of filing, the beneficiary was employed as the Head Coach of the Men's Varsity 
Rowing Team at Colgate University. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. !j 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, international recognized 
award). Bamng 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that the beneficiary was name -of the Year at 
the loth Annual Joy of Sculling National Coaches Conference in 2002. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Ej 204.5(h)(4), nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by 
individuals or teams coached by the beneficiary may be considered as comparable evidence for th~s criterion. 
Here, it is important to evaluate the level at which the beneficiary acts as a coach. A coach who has 
established a successful history of coaching top athletes who win titles at the national level or above has a 
credible claim under the extraordinary ability visa classification; a coach of intermediates or junior-level 
athletes does not. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that during the late 1990's the beneficiary was the primary coach 
of a crew team that placed first in the Egyptian national rowing championships and of an individual rower, 
who placed second and third at World Cup rowing events. 
On appeal, the submits correspondence from the United States Rowing Association, the Egyptian Olympic 
Committee, and the International Rowing Federation confirming that the petitioner remains active as the 
primary coach of top athletes who have competed successfully at the national and international level. We find 
that the evidence presented by the petitioner is adequate to satisfy this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which classification is sought. Skch evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessa y trarislation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the beneficiary and, as stated in 
the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other rnajor media. To qualify as major 
media, .the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or international level fi-om a local publication or fiom a publication in a language that most 
of the population cannot comprehend. 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.' 
The petitioner submitted a 2003 article fiom Rowing News in which the beneficiary is listed as one of several 
recipients of a 2002 coaching award. There is no further mention of the beneficiary in this article. The petitioner 
also submitted a 1994 article from Sports and Fitness Egypt that devotes only eight sentences to the beneficiary. 
This article briefly mentions the beneficiary's activities as an athlete but it does not discuss his work as a coach. 
1 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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 4 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a 2002 article from The Colgate Maroon-News, but this publication does not 
qualify as major media. 
The petitioner also submits an article fiom the Summer 2004 issue of World Rowing Magazine (which devotes 
only three sentences to the beneficiary) and an article fiom the August 2004 issue of Sports and Fitness Egypt 
(which devotes only one sentence to the beneficiary). This evidence cannot be accepted, however, because it 
came into existence subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 1971). 
We cannot ignore that the plain wording of this criterion requires "published materials about the alien." In the 
preceding instances, the beneficiary himself was clearly not the primary subject of the published material. If the 
beneficiary's coaching talent is not the main subject of the articles, then such articles fail to demonstrate his 
individual acclaim. Furthermore, the petitioner has not shown that the preceding publications have a substantial 
national readership. In conclusion, we find that the evidence presented by the petitioner is not adequate to show 
that the beneficiary has been the primary subject of sustained major media attention. 
Evidence that the alien has pegortned in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from the Egyptian Rowing and Canoe Federation indicating that the 
beneficiary served as Head Rowing Coach for the Egyptian National Team during the late 1990's. On appeal, the 
petitioner submitted correspondence from the Egyptian Olympic Committee and the Egyptian Rowing and Canoe 
Federation confirming the beneficiary's selection in 2003 as the Head Coach for the 2004 Egyptian Olympic 
Row~ng Team. 
A letter from Director General, Egyptian Olympic Committee, states: "[The beneficiary] has been 
Rowing Olympic Team for 2004 Olympic Games to be held from 13-29 of 
August 2004 Athens Greece. . . . He is currently supervising and overseeing the training of Egyptian Olympic 
athletn a preparation camp in Colgate University . . . ." 
In this case, we find that the evidence presented satisfies only two of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation in the record indicates that the alien is the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
petition. The approval of an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition on behalf of a given alien does not in any way 
compel Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to approve a subsequent visa petition under section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act on behalf of that same alien. Each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits 
based on the evidence submitted to support that petition. Furthermore, there is no statute, regulation, or 
binding precedent that requires the approval of an immigrant visa petition under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act when the alien already holds an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets at 
least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligbility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving elig~bility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.