dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

PUBLPC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 160 5 1724 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUC 1 9 
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 1 153(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. 
\..J 
&Robert P Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 160 51724 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employrnent-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "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. § 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics as a tennis coach. 
The record indicates that the petitioner was a tennis player in the former Soviet Union before 
to coach junior tennis players and is currently employed as a tennis coach for junior players at the 
Center in San Diego, California. The petitioner submitted numerous supporting documents with h 
in response to a Request for Evidence (RFE) including: a letter from the executive director of the Barnes 
Center, a statement of intent, her curriculum vitae, thirteen recommendation letters written by her colleagues and 
students, evidence of and relating to her Canadian tennis coaching certification, evidence of her 1998 Tennis 
Canada Award of Excellence, a copy of her diploma, evidence of her accomplishments as a tennis player in the 
former Soviet Union, her certification from the Professional Tennis Registry, documentation and information 
regarding her coaching activities in Canada, excerpts from the "Russian Tennis Encyclopedia" and "Tennis on 
the Urals" concerning the petitioner, an article from the Montreal newspaper The Gazette discussing the 
WAC 03 160 51724 
Page 3 
petitioner's 35-plus championship, an article about the petitioner and two other former tennis players from 
Junior Tennis News, two letters soliciting the petitioner's input on tennis related issues, additional evidence 
concerning the Barnes Tennis Center, and excerpts from a Canadian tennis periodical that mention some of the 
petitioner's students. The director determined that the record did not demonstrate the requisite sustained 
acclaim and denied the petition. On appeal, counsel submits a brief, but no additional evidence. 
We first address a threshold issue in this case. The petitioner claims to have earned national acclaim in the 
former Soviet Union as a tennis player that she purports to have sustained as a tennis coach in Canada and the 
United States. This office has held that given the nexus between competing and coaching, in a case where an 
alien has clearly achieved national or international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the 
field of coaching at a national level, an adjudicator may consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an 
overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability. Accordingly, we evaluate the evidence of the 
petitioner's accomplishments as both a tennis player and coach under this standard. On appeal, counsel claims 
the director "failed to review virtually all of the significant evidence" of the petitioner's accomplishments as a 
tennis player and that such failure resulted in the improper denial of the petition. However, full review of the 
record - including the petitioner's personal athletic accomplishments - does not establish her eligibility for 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. The evidence submitted, counsel's remaining contentions 
and the director's decision are addressed in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the 
petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The director did not address the petitioner's prizes or awards as an athlete, but only discussed the petitioner's 
coaching honors and found that they did not meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel claims that the director's 
"unwarranted dismissal" of the petitioner's tennis playing honors resulted in the "improper denial of [the] 
petition." However, our review finds that the evidence of both the petitioner's athletic and coaching honors do 
not satisfy this criterion. 
Excerpts from the 1999 edition of the "Russian Tennis Encyclopedia" contain the petitioner's biography and 
attest to her accomplishments as a tennis player including: ranlung as the number one tennis player in the Soviet 
Union in 1982 and within the top ten Soviet players from 1979 to 1989, winning the Championship of the Soviet 
Union in 1982 in the singles division, winning three intemational tournaments as a single player (Japan in 1982, 
United States in 1982 and Nigeria in 1986)' and winning the Sochi intemational tournament in the doubles 
division in 1975. The excerpt also states that the petitioner was designated a "Master of Sport of International 
Level" in 1980. These accomplishments are also listed in an excerpt from a Russian book entitled "Tennis on 
the Urals: Performances, Problems, Perspectives" that was published in 2001. The record contains a copy of a 
document purported to be the petitioner's Master of Sports of International Level Identification Card, but the 
document is not translated. Because the petitioner failed to submit a certified translation of the document, we 
cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claimed eligibility under this criterion. See 8 
C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). Finally, the record contains an article entitled "Makarova Shows Rivals How Good She 
Is" published in the March 16, 1992 edition of the Montreal newspaper, The Gazette. The article discusses the 
petitioner's win of the 35-and-over title at the Eastern Canadian senior women's indoor tennis championships. 
This evidence indicates that the petitioner won nationally recognized prizes or.ayxds as a tennis player in the 
former Soviet Union and continued to play tennis in Canada. 
WAC 03 160 51724 
Page 4 
However, to meet this criterion the petitioner must also show evidence that she has sustained her past acclaim as 
an athlete through her subsequent work as a tennis coach. Counsel, the petitioner, and many of her support 
letters claim that she has twice received the "Coach of the Year" award in Canada in 1994 and 1997, but the 
record does not sufficiently document this claim. The record contains a letter dated July 16, 1998 from the 
Canadian Tennis Association ("Tennis Canada") congratulating the petitioner on her receipt of an "Award of 
Excellence" in the category of Coaching Honors. The letter lists six other individuals as receiving this same 
honor under a column titled "Men," but the petitioner is the only person listed as receiving this honor under the 
column titled "Women." A printout from the website of Tennis Canada states that it is the "national sport 
association responsible for the development of tennis across the country" and a "member of the International 
Tennis Federation, the Canadian Olympic Association . . . and serves to sponsor and select the teams for Davis 
Cup, Fed Cup, the Olympic Games and all wheelchair, junior and senior national teams." In her RFE response, 
the petitioner submitted a photocopy of two objects, but referred to the document as evidence of only the 
aforementioned award documented by the 1998 letter from Tennis Canada. In the submitted photocopy, the 
words "Tennis Canada" are barely visible on one award, but are invisible on the other. Moreover, the awards 
are imprinted in French and the record contains no translation. Again, without a certified translation of the 
document, we cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claimed eligibility under this 
criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
The record also contains an excerpt from the program for the 1998 Du Maurier Open entitled "Tennis Canada 
Excellence Awards" and affirms the petitioner's receipt of one of the "Coaching Awards for contribution to 
excellence: personal coaches of 1997 National Junior Champions" for her coaching o 
identified as "Junior Male Player of the Year." The petitioner also submitted an - excerpt hois rom t e ecember 
1994 edition of Tennis Mag entitled "The Core1 ~ationals" and featuring a photograph ofthe petitioner with one 
of her students. The photograph is captioned: "Francois Rioux, under-14 Canadian champion, and his coach 
Ludmila Makarova." The record does not establish that this accomplishment resulted in the petitioner's receipt 
of a second coaching "Award of Excellence" in 1994. On page 18 of her appellate brief, counsel admits to 
having confused the "Award of Excellence" with the "Coach of the Year" awards repeatedly cited in the 
petitioner's recommendation letters, but counsel does not submit evidence to show that these two titles in fact 
refer to the same award or evidence of the petitioner's receipt of the award in 1994. 
Counsel also claims that the petitioner meets this criterion by virtue of her Level Four certification by the 
Coaching Association of Canada. The record contains a copy of the petitioner's coaching certificate and a 
printout from the website of Tennis Canada explaining that there are five coaching levels and that a Level Four 
coach is a "National Level Coach." In addition, counsel relies on an excerpt from Tennis Mag entitled 
"Directory of Coaches from Quebec" that lists the petitioner along with seven other individuals as Level Four 
coaches. Counsel claims that this list demonstrates the national selectivity of Level Four certification, but that 
assertion is contradicted by the document itself, which lists the Level Four coaches in Quebec province, not the 
entire nation of Canada. Even if Level Four certification is selective or prestigious, the record does not establish 
that it constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for coaching excellence, rather than a 
professional credential requisite to coaching on a national level in Canada. 
Counsel also cites this list to support her assertion that the petitioner coached a "disproportionate number of 
national champions in Canada." On page 17 of her appellate brief, counsel estimates that there were 
"approximately 80 national champions . . . crowned in Canada in the various age divisions" during the ten years 
that the petitioner coached in that country. Even if we accepted counsel's undocumented estimate, we fail to see 
WAC 03 160 5 1724 
Page 5 
how the petitioner's coaching of two national junior champions is a "disproportionate number" of the asserted 
total of 80 champions. 
The record thus establishes that the petitioner received an "Award of Excellence" in 1998 from Tennis Canada 
for coaching the 1997 Canadian National Junior Male champion,'stephan Timu, and that another one of her 
students won the Under-14 National Title in Canada in 1994. While notable, these accomplishments do not 
reflect that the petitioner has sustained her past acclaim as a tennis player through her subsequent work as a 
tennis coach. The petitioner's most recent coaching honor was received nearly six years prior to the filing of her 
petition and consequently does not demonstrate sustained acclaim as a coach. Moreover, the petitioner has 
apparently only been honored for her coaching of junior tennis players. The record contains no evidence that 
she has been honored for coaching senior or professional players who have won national or international 
championships, the level at which she formerly competed as a tennis player. Accordingly, the evidence does not 
show that the petitioner sustained her prior national acclaim as a Soviet tennis champion through her subsequent 
work as a junior tennis coach in Canada. Consequently, she does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class$cation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner claimed to meet this criterion by virtue of her past membership in the former Soviet Union 
National Tennis Team, the Soviet Federation Cup Team, and as a touring coach for junior Canadian tennis 
players. The director did not discuss the petitioner's past team memberships as a tennis player. On appeal, 
counsel cites an unpublished AAO decision for the proposition that national sports team membership may be 
considered evidence under this criterion pursuant to the comparable evidence provision of 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(4). While we do not recognize the authority of unpublished decisions of this office, which would be 
contrary to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.4(c), we will assess the evidence of the petitioner's participation 
on the Soviet national team under the comparable evidence provision because such participation is consistent 
with national acclaim. 
The excerpt from the aforementioned "Russian Tennis Encyclopedia" states that the petitioner played three 
tournaments as a member of the "National Team of Soviet Union" in 1982, but does not identify these 
tournaments. The submitted excerpt from "Tennis on the Urals" also lists the petitioner's participation in the 
"Federation Championship" as a "member of National (Team) Squad." The record contains a printout from 
the website of the Federation Cup documenting the petitioner's three matches in the first round and 
quarterfinals of the "World Group 1982." This document and an additional printout from the website of 
"Hickok Sports.com" indicate that the Federation Cup is a major international women's tennis tournament. 
This evidence demonstrates that the petitioner has played tennis as a member of the national team of the 
former Soviet Union in at least one international competition. However, her national team participation 
apparently ended in 1983, twenty years prior to the filing of this petition. To meet this criterion through 
comparable evidence of team participation, she must still show that her subsequent work as a tennis coach 
reflects the requisite sustained acclaim. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not satisfy this criterion through her work as a touring 
coach for Canadian junior players. The record contains a "Memorandum" addressed to the petitioner from 
Debbie Kirkwood, "Manager of National Tours/National Coach," that is dated November 10, 1999. The 
memorandum "officially welcome[s] [the petitioner] to the Youth Tennis Centre Program for the 1999 - 2000 
WAC 03 160 51724 
Page 6 
season" and indicates that this program is administered by Tennis Canada. A second memorandum addressed to 
"All 1997 Junior National Camp participants [coaches]" from ~srela~s ''[qinal information re 
Florida Camp." The memorandum includes the petitioner as part of the "Invited group of Tennis Canada 
Touring Coaches." The record also includes three photographs dated 1997 of the petitioner and other team 
members at unidentified international tournaments. Yet the record is devoid of any corroborative evidence of 
the petitioner's acceptance of the invitation and actual work as a touring coach for the 1999 - 2000 season. 
Counsel again stresses the purported prestige of the petitioner's Level Four coaching certification and her 
consequent eligibility to coach on the national level in Canada as evidence that she meets this criterion. To 
support this claim, counsel relies on the aforementioned list from Tennis Mag which she describes as a 
"complete list of all active and inactive coaches involved in the coaching certification program in Canada." 
Counsel claims "the mere fact that [the petitioner] is one of only 13 coaches in Canada to acheve a Level 4 
classification should be recognized as an outstanding achievement in and of itself." Again, counsel does not 
explain or document why the Tennis Mag list entitled "Directory of Coaches from Quebec" should be 
considered a comprehensive list of all certified coaches in Canada, rather than in the province of Quebec. Most 
importantly, the record demonstrates that Level Four is not the highest coaching level certified by Tennis 
Canada. The previously mentioned printout from Tennis Canada states that Level Four coaches may work with 
"National Junior Squads" and "work with international level juniors." This coaching is at a definitively lower 
level than the highest certification of Level Five coaches who, according to the printout, are eligible "to work 
with Davis Cup and Fed Cup squads" and to work with "international-calibre 'Open' category players," the 
level at which the petitioner herself formerly played as a member of the Soviet Federation Cup team in 1982. 
Thus the petitioner's Level Four certification does not reflect national acclaim placing her at the very top of 
tennis coaching in Canada. 
The relevant evidence indicates that the petitioner once served as a touring coach for the Canadian junior team 
in 1997, six years prior to filing her petition. The record thus does not show that the petitioner sustained her 
former national acclaim as a Soviet team tennis player through her subsequent work as a junior tennis team 
coach in Canada. Consequently, she does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in thepeld for which classfication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director did not address the submitted evidence of published material about the petitioner as a tennis player, 
but this error has not prejudiced the petitioner because the record does not indicate that her former national 
acclaim as a Soviet tennis player was sustained through her subsequent coaching in Canada as evidenced by the 
submitted publications. As previously discussed under the first and second criteria, the record contains 
biographies of the petitioner focusing on her past accomplishments as a tennis player in the former Soviet Union 
that were published in the 1999 edition of the "Russian Tennis Encyclopedia" and the 2001 Russian book 
entitled "Tennis on the Urals." The latter book also includes a preface written by the petitioner. The documents 
indicate that the petitioner's last national recognition as a tennis player in the former Soviet Union was in 1989, 
fourteen years before her petition was filed. 
Hence, even if these publications establish the petitioner's past national acclaim as a Soviet tennis player, they 
are insufficient to establish the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion because other articles submitted by the 
petitioner do not reflect sustained acclaim for her subsequent coaching in Canada. The record contains three 
WAC 03 160 5 1724 
Page 7 
articles from the periodical Tennis Mag that mention the petitioner. The article from the December 1994 edition 
previously addressed under the first criterion reports on the Core1 Nationals championship and contains a 
photograph with the caption: "Francois Rioux, under-14 Canadian champion, and his coach Ludmila 
Makarova." An article from the July 1996 edition entitled "Hot Points: Junior Provincial and National 
Champions" contains a photograph with the caption: "In the customary order, Luda Makarova, coach of 
Carrefour Multisports, Stephan Timu, Quebec Champion (14 yrs)." The third article is the aforementioned 
"Directory of Coaches from Quebec" listing the petitioner as a Level Four coach that was published in the June 
2000 edition. Although counsel describes Tennis Mag as a "major French-Canadian tennis periodical," the 
record is devoid of any evidence to support that claim. 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 (BIA 1988); Matter oflaureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The petitioner has not 
submitted evidence that Tennis Mag is nationally circulated in Canada and the magazine's own subtitle, "The 
Quebecois Magazine of Tennis," suggests otherwise. 
The record also contains an article published in the May 30, 1998 edition of The Montreal Journal entitled 
"Tonight at the Jarry Center: Bring Back the Awards of Excellence of Quebec Tennis" that lists the petitioner 
as a nominee for "Trainer 3M of excellence." The article does not discuss the petitioner or the work that 
resulted in her nomination. In addition, the record contains no evidence that The Montreal Journal is a major 
newspaper in Canada rather than a local or regional publication. The petitioner submitted an additional article 
entitled "Makarova Shows Rivals How Good She Is" from the March 16, 1992 edition of The Montreal Gazette, 
but included no documentation that this newspaper is nationally circulated or otherwise considered a major 
news medium in Canada. The petitioner is also featured in an article about her friendship with two Romanian 
tennis players, but the article was published in the bimonthly newsletter of the Barnes Tennis Center, Junior 
Tennis News, which is clearly not a professional, major trade publication or other major media. 
Finally, an excerpt of the program from the 1998 Du Maurier Open lists the petitioner as a recipient of one of 
seven "Coaching Awards for contribution to excellence: personal coaches of 1997 National Junior Champions." 
The excerpt features a photograph of the petitioner's student, Stephan Tirnu, who was named "Junior t ale 
Player of the Year," but does not discuss or further mention the petitioner. Counsel claims that this program 
qualifies as a major trade publication because "[o]fficial programs for major tennis events such as the U.S. 
Open, Wimbledon or the Canadian Open [Du Maurier Open] include information about the competitors, the 
nations they represent, other competitions, world rankings, and other significant information about the sport of 
tennis." Counsel focuses on an ancillary issue. We do not contest that such programs may contain significant 
information, the issue here is whether or not the programs constitute "publications" under the regulation. 
Counsel has not provided any evhence that the program for the 1998 Du Maurier Open was nationally 
circulated, available for purchase outside of the tournament, or any other evidence that the program constitutes a 
professional or major trade publication in Canada. 
The record contains articles that only list the petitioner's name or identify her as a coach for two Canadian 
junior champions, but are not about her coaching, as the regulation requires. Moreover, the evidence does not 
demonstrate that any of these articles were published in professional, major trade publications or other major 
media in a manner reflective of national acclaim. Accordingly, the record does not demonstrate that the 
petitioner sustained her prior national acclaim as a Soviet tennis player documented by the Russian book 
biographies through her subsequent coaching in Canada as documented by the submitted articles. Consequently, 
she does not meet this criterion. 
WAC 03 160 5 1724 
Page 8 
(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 alliedfield of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion and counsel does not contest that 
conclusion on appeal. Although counsel initially claimed that the petitioner met this criterion through her 
coaching of "elite level tennis players," she acknowledges on page five of her appellate brief that such coaching 
alone is insufficient to meet this criterion. This office has held that duties or activities which nominally fall 
under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim 
if they are inherent or routine to the occupation itself. Nothing in the record in this case indicates that the 
petitioner's coaching was extraordinary or otherwise indicative of national or international acclaim. As 
discussed above under the second criterion, the evidence shows only that the petitioner was an invited touring 
coach for the Canadian national junior team in 1997, a one-time service performed six years before her petition 
was filed that does not reflect sustained acclaim. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Other relevant evidence is also insufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility under this category. The 
record contains a letter from the General Manager of the Jericho Tennis Club in Vancouver, Canada requesting 
the petitioner to evaluate candidates for a position at the Club and a letter from a doctoral student at the 
University of Western Australia requesting the petitioner's completion of a questionnaire for a sport injury 
research study. Although the letters indicate that the petitioner was contacted because of her coaching 
reputation, the record contains no evidence that she completed the requested evaluation or questionnaire. 
(v) Evidence of the alien S original scientijc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in thejeld. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted 
thirteen letters of recommendation from individuals she has worked with as a tennis player or coach. While 
such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by 
themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's 
work is of major significance in his or her field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he or she 
has worked directly. Moreover, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has 
earned sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other 
evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
The letters praise the petitioner's accomplishments and indicate that she is well regarded by her colleagues and 
students. However, only a few of the letters actually address her specific contributions to the sport. Andrke 
Martin, Director of Junior Development for the Quebec Tennis Federation, heralds the petitioner's "exceptional 
teaching ability [which] has guided her tennis students to 30 provincial and national championships,'' although 
the record documents the petitioner's coaching of only two national junior champions. Boris Sobkin, a 
"certified H.P. coach for the Association of Tennis Professionals," explains that the petitioner "has a very 
unique technical understanding of the game and she is able to pass on that knowledge to her students so that they 
may get the most out of their individual abilities. More importantly, Ludmila is able to teach her students the 
value of hard work and to motivate them in ways that most coaches are unable to." Larissa Preobrazhenskaya, 
who coached the petitioner in Russia, also states that the petitioner's "expert knowledge and approach to 
coaching has helped many young tennis players compete and win at some of the highest levels of tennis in the 
WAC 03 160 5 1724 
Page 9 
world." Similar statements are made in the letters of Sylvain Bruneau, Olga Morozova, Rauza Islanova, Mikhail 
Youzhny, and her former students Stephan Timu, Cristina Popescu, Francois Row, Marat Safin, Anastasia 
Myskina and Tatiana Panova. 
Other evidence in the record does not demonstrate that the petitioner's coaching made major contributions to the 
sport of tennis. As discussed above under the first through the fourth criteria, the record shows that the 
petitioner has coached two Canadian junior champions and received one nationally recognized coaching award 
in 1998 (for coaching the 1997 Canadian male junior champion). The record document's the petitioner's Level 
Four coaching certification and the petitioner's consequent eligibility to coach junior players on a national level, 
but the relevant evidence also clearly establishes that Level Four is not the highest certification awarded by 
Tennis Canada, namely Level Five, which allows coaching of players in major international tennis tournaments 
at the highest level. Although media articles indicate that the petitioner has gained some regional recognition 
for her coaching in Montreal and Quebec, the articles do not reflect national acclaim throughout Canada. The 
record thus indicates that the petitioner's contributions are recognized and well regarded by her colleagues and 
students, but it does not establish that those contributions have garnered significant recognition in her field at 
large in a manner reflective of sustained national or international acclaim. Consequently, the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion and counsel does not contest that 
conclusion on appeal. As counsel acknowledges on page five of her appellate brief, this criterion applies 
primarily to visual artists. Even if we considered the petitioner's participation in tennis tournaments under the 
comparable evidence provision of 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(4), the evidence would not demonstrate her eligibility. 
Although the petitioner played in at least one major international tournament in 1982 (the Federation Cup), she 
has not sustained that acclaim as a player through her subsequent coaching. The record indicates that she has 
only coached junior players, only two of whom have won national championships in Canada. Moreover, the 
petitioner's most recent documented coaching of a junior national champion was in 1997, six years prior to the 
filing of her petition. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a + distinguished reputation. 
The director correctly determined that the evidence did not satisfy this category. The petitioner claimed 
eligibility under this criterion by virtue of her competition at the 1982 Federation Cup, her position of head 
coach at the Club Carrefour in Quebec, her work as a touring coach for the Canadian National Junior Team, and 
as a teaching professional at the Barnes Tennis Center in California. We address each role in turn. 
The director found that the petitioner's role on the 1982 Soviet Federation Cup team did not meet this criterion 
because "[c]ounsel is silent on how the petitioner's role on the team is any more critical than the other 3 team 
members." Counsel contends on page 14 of her appellate brief that the director "grossly mischaracterizes the 
role that individual competitors play for their national tennis organizations in such prestigous international 
competitions as the Federation Cup." We do not reach the issue of whether national sports team membership for 
a single competition qualifies under this criterion because the petitioner's participation in the Soviet Federation 
Cup team occurred in 1982, over 20 years prior to the filing of this petition and consequently does not reflect the 
requisite sustained acclaim. Moreover, as the following discussion explains, the petitioner's past acclaim as a 
WAC 03 160 51724 
Page 10 
national tennis team player has not been sustained through her subsequent work as a coach for three different 
tennis organizations. 
The petitioner's resume states that she worked as the head coach at Club Carrefour from 1993 to 2000, but the 
record does not corroborate that position. The petitioner submitted a certificate entitled "National Youth Tennis 
Centre" and presented to "Carrefour Multisports for the Year 1999-2000" by Tennis Canada "[iln recognition of 
the work being done in the area of Youth Development." The record also contains a letter dated September 15, 
2000 concerning the "Calendar of sanctioned tournaments for 2000-2001 ." The letter is addressed to "Players 
licensed by the Tennis Federation of Quebec," but does not contain the petitioner's name or title. A letter 
addressed to the petitioner from The Tennis Federation of Quebec and dated January 3 1, 1994 invites the 
petitioner to a press conference to announce the finalists for honors to be presented at "the Bell Mobilite Gala 
for Quebecois Tennis 1994." The letter explains "your presence at this conference is among the most important 
since you or your organization are a finalist in one of the 12 categories on the program," but does not specify the 
nomination or state whether the petitioner or Carrefour Multisports is the nominee. The previously mentioned 
article from the May 30, 1998 edition of The Montreal Journal lists the petitioner as a nominee for "Trainer 3M 
of excellence" and identifies her with "Carrefour Multisports." Yet the record is devoid of any evidence 
documenting the petitioner's position as head coach or demonstrating that she played a critical or leading role 
for Carrefour Multisports. 
As discussed above under the second, third and fourth criteria, the record indicates that the petitioner was once 
selected as a touring coach for the Canadian junior tennis team in 1997 by Tennis Canada. Although notable, 
this one-time service six years prior to the filing of this petition does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Finally, the petitioner does not meet this criterion through her recent work at th- The 
record contains a printout from the center's website introducing the petitioner as a "pro teaching at the Barnes 
Tennis Center." The printout also explains that the center is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to 
"promote the educational, physical, and social development of all youth through organized tennis and 
educational activities." The printout does not state how many tennis professionals are employed by the center or 
otherwise explain the significance of the petitioner's position. The record includes no other evidence that the 
petitioner plays a leading or critical role for the center. The petitioner submitted copies of the 1997 "USTA 
Outstanding Tennis Facility Award" granted to the center and the center's "1995 San Diego District Tennis 
Association Club of the Year" award. Although these awards may document the center's distinguished 
reputation, the record does not establish that the petitioner plays a leading or critical role for the center. 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion through any of her coaching positions. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner earned national acclaim as a tennis player in the former Soviet Union and 
was subsequently employed as a junior tennis coach in Canada and the United States. However, the record does 
not establish that the petitioner sustained her former acclaim as a Soviet tennis player through her subsequent 
work, placing her at the very top of the field of tennis coaching in Canada or the United States. She is thus 
ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), and her petition may not be approved. 
WAC 03 160 51724 
Page 11 
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.