dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identieing data delW t~ 
prevent:clearly unwmmUd 
invasion of personal piivro). 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 08 111 51526 
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. $ 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. $ 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). 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
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. 9 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 she meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 9 204.5(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 
she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on February 19, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a "Women's Tennis Coach." At the time of filing, the petitioner was 
working as an Aside 
from documentation of her activities as a coach. the ~etitioner submitted a September 28,2007 letter 
[The petitioner] was 
selected member for 
The preceding athletic achievements occurred more than a decade prior to the filing date of the 
petition. Thus, the petitioner's > and national team memberships 
are not evidence of her sustained national or international acclaim as a tennis coach. Subsequent to 
the conclusion of her collegiate tennis career in 2002, there is no evidence indicating that the 
petitioner remained active as a competitor in national or international tennis tournaments. Further, 
according to Part 6 of the Form 1-140 petition, "Basic information about the proposed employment," 
and letters of support from individuals at USC, the petitioner (age 29 at the time of filing) is seeking 
work in the United States as an Assistant Women's Tennis Coach. The statute and regulations require 
the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained and that she seeks to continue work in 
her area of expertise in the United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. $5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. $8 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a tennis player 
and a coach may share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. 
Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has 
been upheld in Federal Court. In Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any 
profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player does 
not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball 
industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim through 
achievements as a competitive tennis player since the conclusion of her collegiate career in 2002. 
Further, the evidence is clear that the petitioner intends to work as an assistant coach for the USC 
women's tennis team. While the petitioner's competitive accomplishments as a tennis player are not 
completely irrelevant and will be given some consideration, ultimately she must satisfy the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) through her achievements as a coach. 
Page 4 
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 under 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel stated that the petitioner was "not 
submitting evidence in this category." However, the letter from the Secretary of the - 
Association states that the petitioner "was 
1996." The petitioner also submitted a Sept 
[The petitioner] was one of the best Yugoslavian junior tennis players and she represented 
her country in many international tennis tournaments such as European Team 
Championships, Junior Wimbledon, World Team Championships . . . . 
The petitioner's initial submission included a letter from Troy Porco, Assistant Women's Tennis Coach, 
University of Virginia, stating that the petitioner "was the Yugoslavian National Junior Single and 
Doubles Champion multiple times." 
The petitioner's national junior championships resulted from her accomplishments as a 
tennis player and cannot be considered evidence of her national or international acclaim as a coach. 
There is no evidence indicating that the petitioner has received any nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards in her sport since the 1990s or that she intends to continue competing as 
a tennis player in the United States. As discussed previously, the statute and regulations require the 
petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained and that she seeks to continue work in her 
area of expertise in the United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 5 
$5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While recognition earned by the 
petitioner as a tennis player is not completely irrelevant and will be given some consideration, 
ultimately she must satisfy the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) through her 
achievements as a coach. Accordingly, the petitioner's awards and competitive results 
demonstrating her past record of success as a collegiate and junior player cannot serve to meet this 
regulatory criterion. 
Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by tennis players coached primarily 
by the petitioner, however, can be considered for this criterion. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a February 18,2009 letter 
from Athletics Director, USC, stating: 
During [the petitioner's] tenure with the women's tennis team, an astonishing number of 
accomplishments have occurred that are a direct reflection of her impact on the program: 
In her first year, the team defeated n the road, a team ranked #4 in the nation 
at the time. Only one other time in the past 25 years has the team defeated an opponent 
ranked higher. 
Two seniors on this year's team recruited by [the petitioner], - 
have a chance to finish their careers as the first players in school history to 
receive all-conference recognition four times. 
was a top American recruit in the country when [the petitioner] signed her to a 
National Letter of Intent to play for the University of South Carolina. 
In 2007, the team posted an 8-3 record in the Southeastern Conference, the most league 
victories in school history. The team also went undefeated at home that season for the 
first time in school history. 
has a chance to become the first player in school history to reach 
the our times and finish with a national singles ranking 
four consecutive years. 
recruited by [the petitioner], earned a national singles ranking 
of #14 in January 2009, the second highest ranking in the school's 36 years of women's 
tennis. 
In 2008 [the petitioner] recruited the first student athlete who represents 
her country in a World National Championship - Fed Cup. 
There is no evidence showing that 
a received nationally or internationally recognized "prizes or awards" while under the 
petitioner's coaching instruction. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
[The petitioner] has coached the 2008 number one WTA [Women's Tennis Association] 
ranked women's player, as well as several top 25 U.S. ranked women 
Page 6 
nd represented Serbia in the-2009 World University Games. 
Without documentary evidence to support these claims, the assertions of counsel will not satisfl the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 
n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The record does 
not include evidence showing that the petitioner has ever coached Jelena ~ankovic.~ Further, there is 
no evidence showing WTA or Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) "top 25" U.S. rankings for 
Gina Schofield, Suzanna Mansour, or Natasa Vuckovic, or that these players have received 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards while under the petitioner's direct tutelage. 
Moreover, with regard to awards won by the petitioner and her players in "junior" or collegiate level 
competition, we cannot conclude that such recognition demonstrates that she "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). 
There is no indication that the petitioner or her collegiate players faced competition from throughout 
their field (including WTA professionals), rather than limited to their approximate age group or skill 
level within that field. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do 
not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.j Likewise, it does not follow that a tennis player or 
coach who has had past success competing and coaching at the junior or collegiate level should 
necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise 
would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be 
reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of 
endeavor." 
2 According tolayer profile as posted on her official website and on the :- 
internet site, the individuals who coached her were identified as See httD://www.ii- 
jelenaiankovic.com/eng/bio.l~bnl and h~://www.son~ericssonwtatour.com/~la~er/elena-ankovic 2257889 3932, 
accessed on January 22, 2010, copies incorporated into the record of proceeding. In this instance, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner has ever served as primary coach or accompanied her to competitions in that 
capacity. 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the Court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
6 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
- 
Page 7 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner or players coached primarily by her 
have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in top level competition. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alienk membership in associations in the jeld for which 
classijkation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here 
is membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The etitioner submitted letters from the 
dh stating that the petitioner was a member of the :- 
In this case, "the field for which classification is 
sought" is coaching. We note that these national team memberships were based on the petitioner's 
ability as a tennis player, not as a coach. Accordingly, the petitioner's athletic participation on these 
teams, before she was active as a coach, cannot serve to meet this regulatory criterion. 
The etitioner submitted a certificate from the 
dh stating: "[The petitioner] has successfully completed all requirements, including an extensive examination of teaching, playing and business skills, necessary for the rating of 
Professional 2." In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an 
unsigned letter from listing the 
"Professional 2" requirements: 
Must be 18 years of age or older 
Must pass all portions of the Certification Exam at the Pro 2 level or higher 
Must have an of 4.0 or higher 
Must demonstrate teaching ability through apprenticeship or teaching experience 
We cannot conclude that that the meceding reauirements for the "Professional 2" certification 
w A 
designation in the equate outs$nding achievements 
requirements for earning an mating of "4.0 or 
 letter does not 
4 
 According to the rating levels range from 1.0 (defined as a player who "is just starting to 
play tennis" to 7.0 (defined as a "world-class" player). Characteristics of a player with a 4.0 rating state: 
"This player has dependable strokes, including directional control and depth on both forehand and backhand 
sides on moderate shots, plus the ability to use lobs, overheads, approach shots, and volleys with some 
success. This player occasionally forces errors when serving. Rallies may be lost due to impatience." See 
h~:lldps.usta.comiusta masterlsitecore usta~USTA/Doc~1ment%2OAssets/2006/04/03/doc 13 12277.pdf, accessed on 
Page 8 
identify the other levels of USPTA certification. For exam le, the petitioner has not submitted 
information regarding the more restrictive "Professional 1" rating.5 The petitioner has not 
demonstrated that her Professional 2 designation in the & is an indication that she "is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). 
Rather, the petitioner's Professional 2 designation is intended for those with lesser skills and 
teaching experience than those at the Professional 1 level. We note here that the petitioner seeks a 
highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective 
fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. 
The petitioner's res onse to the director's request for evidence included a February 26, 2009 letter 
fi-om xecutive Director of the ITA, stating that the petitioner "is a member in 
good standing with the ITA." The record, however, does not include evidence of the membership 
requirements (such as bylaws or rules of admission) for the ITA. In this case, there is no evidence 
showing that the ITA and the equire outstanding achievements of their members as judged 
by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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 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.6 
January 22, 2010, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. Accordingly, the petitioner has not shown that 
having a minimum rating of 4.0 is commensurate with outstanding achievement. 
According to the internet site, "Professional 1" is the highest certification rating and requires the 
following: 
Must be 22 years of age or older 
Must pass all portions of the Certification Exam at the Pro 1 level or higher 
Must have an NTRP of 4.5 or higher 
Must have three years or five seasons of full-time teaching experience 
See http://uspta.com/default.aspx/Mei~uItemID11627/MenuSubID/278.htm, accessed on January 22, 2010, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
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 9 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a February 15,2009 article in 
Diaspora Daily News (Vesti) entitled "[The petitioner] Becomes Tennis Coach After Injury, Serb Girl 
Wins South Carolina." The petitioner also submitted a February 14, 2009 article in Sports Journal 
entitled "Serbian Girls at the Top in Carolina." The authors of the preceding articles were not identified 
as required by the plain language of this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner submits distribution and 
circulation information for Vesti newspapers, but the source of this information was not specified or 
submitted. The petitioner's response also included a March 4,2009 article in Spurs & Feathers entitled 
"[The petitioner] Called to Coach." The preceding articles from 2009 post-date the filing of the 
petition. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
$9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, 
the AAO will not consider these articles from 2009 in this proceeding. Nevertheless, the petitioner 
has not established that the preceding articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjield of specfication 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." The evidence submitted 
to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international a~claim.~ 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 letter from of the ITA states: "[The her vote annually for 
Wilson-ITA coach of the year along with ITA ranking." etter does not specifl the 
dates when the petitioner voted or the requirements for participation. Nevertheless, the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the petitioner's "participation . . . as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought." 
We cannot conclude that voting in an ITA coaches' poll meets the plain language of this criterion or 
is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. For example, there is no indication 
that the petitioner was the final authority in the voting process or that her choices were accorded greater 
weight than those of the scores of other NCAA tennis coaches who cast votes with the ITA. While not 
dispositive, the petitioner's role among numerous other voters does not support a claim to being one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). Without evidence showing, for example, that the petitioner has judged the work of 
7 We note that although not binding precedent, this interpretation has been upheld in Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006) and All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 * 11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 
2005). 
Page 10 
others in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her 
field, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scienti~k, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major sign2Jicance in the jeld. 
stating: 
In 2004 I had the chance to hire [the petitioner] as my assistant coach. Not only did she meet 
my expectations as a coach, but she far exceeded what any other assistant coach has done at 
University of South Carolina. I have seen [the petitioner] grow not only as a top technical 
coach but a world class recruiter. Since [the petitioner] has joined me at South Carolina our 
team has gone to the NCAA Tournament three straight years and our National Ranking has 
moved up every year. This is in significant part because of [the petitioner's] efforts. 
On appeal, counsel states: "As a direct result of the success of [the petitioner] bringing USC into the 
U.S. top 25 and the NCAA Championships, USC women's tennis has been broadcast on CBS 
Sports, ESPN, ESPN 2, and the Tennis Channel, earning money for the school, the SEC [Southeast 
Conference] and the national broadcasting networks." The record, however, does not include 
evidence of these television broadcasts or the monetary amounts specifically attributable to the 
petitioner. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Nevertheless, the USC internet profile of submitted with his letter reflects that he has 
served as head coach for more than twenty years and that the USC women's team had qualified for 
the NCAA Tournament and finished in the top 25 numerous times prior to the petitioner having 
joined his staff in 2004. For example, from 1994 through 1997, the USC women's team finished in 
the ITA top 25 during all four seasons. Further, from 1999 through 2002, the team finished in the 
ITA top 25 and participated in either the "Round of 16" or the "Round of 32" in the NCAA 
Championships. Thus, the team had demonstrated such competitive results under long 
before the petitioner's arrival. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that her work as an 
assistant coach at USC equates to original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. 
Counsel further states that "coaching winning college players who go on to compete on the 
international stage is a contribution of major significance well outside of the Southeastern 
conference." The record, however, does not include evidence showing that players coached 
primarily by the petitioner have competed successfully on the national or "international stage" while 
under her direction. As previously discussed, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533, 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 
1, 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 503, 506. Nevertheless, the competitive 
awards and recognition conferred upon the petitioner's players has already been addressed under the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory 
Page 11 
criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for awards and 
original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view these criteria as being 
interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
We acknowledge the oetitioner's submission of letters of suooort from her former coach- 
petitioner's athletic accomplishments, her talent and activities as a tennis coach, and her importance 
to the women's team. The record, however, does not include evidence showing that the 
petitioner has made original athletic contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted her 
sport. With regard to the petitioner's coaching achievements, the reference letters do not specify 
exactly what the petitioner's original contributions in tennis have been, nor is there an explanation 
indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in her sport. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 individuals offering letters of support express admiration 
for the petitioner, there is no evidence demonstrating that any of her past accomplishments equate to 
original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, 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 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 795-796. Thus, the content of the writers' 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 achievements that one would expect of a tennis 
coach who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation 
showing that the petitioner's coaching achievements have been unusually influential, highly 
acclaimed throughout her sport, or have otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of 
major significance, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an unsigned letter fiom 
  he letter from does not bear his signature. 
Page 12 
involvement in running the "Gamecock Tennis Camp" with for "Boys and Girls ages 7- 
17." The petitioner also submitted a letter from the Tennis Director of the City of Columbia 
discussing the petitioner's involvement as an instructor at the "Invitational ~olumbia-USTA Belton- 
Southern tennis camp" for "junior players in the Southeast region." In a letter accompanying the 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence, counsel argues that the petitioner's 
involvement in the preceding tennis camps meets this criterion. The petitioner's field, however, is not 
in the arts. The plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it applies to visual artists 
(such as sculptors and painters) rather than to sports coaches. The ten criteria in the regulations are 
designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. Nevertheless, 
the petitioner has not established that working at the preceding youth tennis camps was 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field or that 
such work equates to the exclusive showcases of one's work that are contemplated by this regulation 
for visual artists. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected her. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support from : discussing the 
petitioner's impact on the USC women's tennis team as an assistant coach. While these letters 
provide information regarding the petitioner's coaching activities, there is no evidence demonstrating 
how the petitioner's role as an "assistant" differentiated her from the other coaches on thetaff, 
let alone the team's head coach. The information provided in the preceding letters of support does 
not establish that the petitioner was responsible for the omen's tennis team's success or standing 
to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical rol and indicative of sustained national 
or international acclaim. With regard to the reputation of the women's tennis team, the internet 
profile accompanying letter indicates that the team has not placed in the top three in the 
or distinguished itself nationally or internationally by winning a NCAA national championship, 
for example. While the women's team has accrued an overall winning percentage of .601 
under coach there is no evidence demonstrating that the team has a distinguished national or 
international reputation in collegiate competition (particularly in relation to ITF top ten teams) or in 
professional tennis. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate her 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria 
that must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. $ 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 of coaches who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
Page 13 
$ 204.5(h)(2). For example, the letter of support fromtates that she is the Head 
that her teams have reached the NCAA quarterfinals eight times, 
that she was National Coach of the Year in Division I Women's Tennis, that she coached the U.S. 
national team in the 1980's, and that she has coached the for five of the 
last nine summers. In his letter of support, tates that he is the Head Men's Tennis Coach 
at that his teams have won seven national team championships, and that he was National Coach of 
the Year three times. The preceding individuals' coaching accomplishments indicate that the top of the 
petitioner's field is significantly higher than the level she has attained at this point in her coaching 
career. 
Counsel initially argued that the letters of support submitted by the petitioner should be considered 
as comparable evidence of her extraordinary ability as a tennis coach. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the consideration 
of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no evidence that eligibility for visa preference in the 
petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). In fact, counsel's appellate submission and response to the director's request 
for evidence specifically address several of the preceding regulatory criteria. Where an alien is 
simply unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3), the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests evaluation 
of as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. We note that the petitioner's letters of 
support have already been addressed under the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). While 
reference letters can provide useful information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning 
weight to certain evidence, such letters are not comparable to extensive evidence of the alien's 
achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(2)(i). The classification sought 
requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the 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). Primary evidence of achievements and 
recognition is of far greater probative value than opinion statements from individuals selected by the 
petitioner. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a 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. 
Page 14 
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 petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.