dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarran~d 
invasion of personal pri'v~cy 
PUBLICCOP~ 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
NOV 092010 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion. The fee for a Form I-290B is currently $585, but will increase to $630 on November 23,2010. Any 
appeal or motion filed on or after November 23,2010 must be filed with the $630 fee. Please be aware that 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion 
seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203 (b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, while we 
withdraw some of the director's concerns, we concur with the director's ultimate decision that the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
I. Law 
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. 
Page 3 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The tenn "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence. 
(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 authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has perfonned in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
Page 4 
(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. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. § 1l53(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(iv); Solfane v. DOJ, 381 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
II. Analysis 
At the outset, we note that the petitioner lists the proposed employment as a tennis coach. The 
petitioner has worked as a tennis coach for several years after competing in the sport. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) requires the beneficiary to "continue work in the area of expertise." While a 
tennis player and a coach certainly share knowledge of tennis, 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. Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp.2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien IS receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted what appear to be several awards he received as a competitor, the most recent 
being in 1993. The petitioner did not submit certified translations, or even any translations, as required 
under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). These awards are not indicative of sustained acclaim as an athlete in 
2009 when the petition was filed. Moreover, they are not awards recognizing the petitioner's abilities as 
a coach. The petitioner did not submit any evidence of awards issued to him as a coach. 
The petitioner claimed that his academic credentials and responsibilities as tournament director serve as 
qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Academic credentials and duties for a tournament 
are not "awards" or "prizes" for excellence in the field according to the commonly understood 
definitions of those words.3 Rather, an academic degree represents the expected outcome of successful 
completion of assigned coursework while tournament duties are more akin to employment. Thus, the 
petitioner's academic credentials and tournament duties do not meet the plain language requirements of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
3 An award is something "awarded or granted, as for merit," while a prize is something "offered or won as an 
award for superiority or excellence in competition." Webster's New College Dictionary 80, 901 (3fd ed. 
2008). 
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. 
The petitioner initially asserted that his position as a his service as a 
"permanent collaborator" with the faculty at that university, his licensure, 
letters from references, his thesis and his articles should all be considered under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The petitioner does not explain how any of this evidence constitutes a "membership" 
in an "association" as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Even if we looked at his 1994 trainer 
license, a license is not a membership in an association. We reach that conclusion from the ordinary 
meaning of "license" and "membership" and from the regulations relating to aliens of exceptional 
ability, which include separate criteria for licenses and professional memberships.4 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) and (E). 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted his "professional" 
certification from the Professional Tennis Registry (PTR) for October 2009 through August 2010. The 
petitioner also submitted a press release about the certification indicating that PTR "is the largest global 
organization oftennis teaching professionals with 14,000 members in 122 countries." According to the 
press release, certification is based on a five-part written and on-court examination. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's certificate postdated the filing of the petition and could not 
be considered. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner was already a member of PTR as of the 
date of filing and that a recent service center decision had "diluted" Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). Counsel does not explain how an unpublished service center decision 
can overturn a designated published precedent decision. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that 
AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Moreover, the holding in Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. at 49, has been codified at 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12). 
We concur with the director that we cannot consider certification after the date of filing. All of the 
case law on this issue focuses on the policy of preventing petitioners from securing a priority date in 
the hope that they will subsequently be able to demonstrate eligibility. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 
16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; see also Matter 
4 A license is "[0 ]fficial or legal permission to do or own a specified thing" while a membership is the "state 
of being a member," defined as "[o]ne who belongs to a group or organization." Webster's New College 
Dictionary 647, (3rd ed. 2008). 
Page 7 
of /zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Comm'r. 1998)( citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 
(BIA 1981) for the proposition that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent 
to the filing of a petition. ") Consistent with these decisions, a petitioner cannot secure a priority date 
in the hope that he will subsequently secure a qualifying membership. Ultimately, in order to be 
meritorious in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval as of 
the date it was filed. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257,261 (4th Cir. 2008). 
Even if we considered the petitioner's certification, we are not persuaded that certification is a 
"membership" rather than a license. As stated above, a license is evidence that is only relevant to a 
lesser classification, aliens of exceptional ability pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). Moreover, passing a certification examination, even an examination that many do 
not pass on the first attempt, is not an outstanding achievement. It remains that PTR is the largest 
global organization of its kind with many members. The membership numbers are not consistent with 
an association that limits its membership to only those with outstanding achievements. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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. 
Counsel has never asserted that the petitioner submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and the director concluded that no such evidence was submitted. We note that the 
record contains press releases about the petitioner's professional certification that postdates the filing of 
the petition and a press release announcing that the petitioner was joining Weymouth Club as the 
The petitioner also submitted an article about his son's 
achievements in a newspaper of undocumented circulation. This article also postdates the filing of the 
petition. 
Once again, we will not consider evidence that postdates the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Regardless, the record contains no 
evidence that the press releases were published in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. The article about the petitioner's son, while quoting the petitioner, is not about the 
petitioner as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, the record also lacks evidence that 
this article appeared in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 
Page 8 
The explanation of the initial evidence made no mention of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 
the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from a 
professor at where the petitioner used to teach and former President of the 
Romanian Sport Science Council. asserts that the petitioner has "judged national and 
international competitions in Europe, tennis is a very highly respected team sport." _ 
further asserts that selection as a judge is competitive and that the petitioner was selected "repeatedly" 
to serve as a judge. ! ::loes not identify any specific competition where the petitioner served as 
a judge and the record contains no programs or letters from competition organizers confirming this 
servIce. 
The director, relying on Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 
1972), concluded that the record contained no evidence to assertions. On appeal, 
counsel cites Soltane, 381 F.3d at 151, for the proposition that the director erred in relying on Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California. Counsel concludes that a statement from a Romanian government 
official should constitute sufficient evidence. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998). This 
case, citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190, does not involve the issue of 
administrative notice noted in Matter of Treasure Craft of California. Moreover, merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.5 Thus, the 
bare assertion that the petitioner has judged tennis competitions without even identifying those 
competitions is insufficient. 
Significantly, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) provides that evidence of experience "shall be in 
the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s)." A letter from the petitioner's fellow faculty 
member at the University of Oradea purporting to confirm judging experience at unidentified 
competitions outside the university is insufficient evidence of that experience. While _ may 
also have served as he does not specifically assert 
that the petitioner judged competitions organized by the council. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner judged faculty candidates. 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 contains a certificate 'from the Faculty of Physical Education and Sports 
Oradea indicating that the petitioner was "part of the Entrance committee of the faculty for the 
disciplines Athletics and Tennis in the period 1996-2004." The certificate does not provide the duties 
of the entrance committee. As such, we cannot determine whether these duties included judging the 
work of others. 
5 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Page 9 
As the record lacks evidence from competition organizers confirming when and where the petitioner 
served as a judge of the work of others, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets 
the plain language~ts of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Even if we accepted the 
vague letter from~ as sufficient evidence under this criterion, and we do not, his failure to 
identify the actual competitions or the dates of the petitioner's service as a judge makes it impossible for 
us to evaluate the nature of the judging in our final merits determination. See Kazarian, 596 F .3d at 
1122. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of tennis coaching the contribution must have influenced the coaching of 
tennis beyond the institutions and clubs where the petitioner has been employed. 
The petitioner submitted several conference 
~ published by 
_ asserts that the articles were np~'r_rp, 
submitted no evidence of the circulation of these journals. On appeal, counsel asserts that these articles 
have been "regularly cited." We reiterate that the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner's 
articles have been cited such as a citation index. The record also lacks course curricula from various 
universities demonstrating that the petitioner's articles are routinely assigned as course reading at 
universities across Romania. The petitioner did not submit any other comparable evidence that the 
field relies on his articles. 
~etitioner submits several letters supporting the petition. The petitioner's fitness trainer, _ 
_ , provides broad assertions of the petitioner's abilities as a coach, concluding that he would be an 
asset to tennis coaching programs in the United States. Several members of the faculty at the 
praise the 
petitioner as a professor and an example to his students but ~ no examples of the petitioner's 
methods or techniques being utilized beyond the University of_ 
The nAT1T1r"",,A,. where he 
Page 10 
petitioner ~and "well above the common Tennis Pros that you may find around the 
country." _ asserts that his own ability as a coach has improved from working with 
the petitioner. 
In addition, several of the petitioner's students and their parents attest to his ability as a coach, asserting 
that he h~S im roved their game. Some of the petitioner's students make specific assertions. For 
example, asserts that the petitioner helped him get third place at the national Tennis 
Champions Ip or ages 16 and under and to become a member ofthe Romanian Team at the European 
Team Championship. asserts: 
As a result of our collaboration I became national champion at the ages 14, 16, and 17, 
European champion in singles and doubles, age 14 and under, at the European 
championships for East Europe, and also I made a huge jump in the ATP rankings after 
the finals played in August 2002 in a satellite in Egypt, moving from 4123 to 604 in the 
ATP ranking!!" 
asserts that the petitioner spent some time wit~daughters, 
assistance than previous coaches. On appeal, the petitioner provides evidence of 
_ rankings in their age group in Hungary (17th and 23rd). 
asserts that his daughter, coached by the~ is ranked second for under 16 
players in New England and 39th in her age group nationally. --. who asserts that the petitioner 
is one of his daughter's coaches, asserts that his daughter has been ranked first in New England in her 
age divisions and 20th . On the petitioner submits corroborating evidence of the 
rankings for 
asserts that the petitioner "worked 
I . h' fi t h d kn I d fthi • ! 
I 
In the time that he has been in Oradea, [the petitioner] worked with the elite program 
and traveled with junior players to regional, national and international competitions. 
~like 
~e only a few names that [the petitioner] helped to become nationally and 
internationally ranked tennis players. 
does not explicitly assert that these 
success. Regardless, 
players is either original or sufficiently influential 
significance. 
were primarily under the petitioner's tutelage 
does not explain how coaching successful 
as to be considered a contribution of major 
Page 11 
asserts that the petitioner works with elite ranked players at the We~ of the largest and 
most successful junior development programs in New England." ~ does not identify 
any original contributions or assert that the petitioner's original contributions are responsible for the 
success of the Weymouth Club. 
Director at 
compete against players at the Weymouth Club. asserts that training 
junior competitors to bec takes more ability than refining the game of a seasoned 
professional. Even if tru does not identify anything original about the petitioner's 
methodology or explain how it has influenced the field at a level consistent with a contribution of major 
significance. 
Connecticut, asserts: "I feel that I steal a 
bit of [the petitioner's] knowledge with each discussion" and that the petitioner is a "valuable resource 
for my own students." This letter, however, does not establish the petitioner's influence beyond his 
personal acquaintances in New England. 
affirms the importance of developing 
teenage players and notes that parents spend "tens of thousands of dollars to see th~ 
and succeed." _ expresses an interest in having the petitioner coach at the ____ 
While this letter may demonstrate demand for the petitioner's services, it does not establish that his 
coaching techniques are either original or influential at a level consistent with a contribution of major 
significance. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits documentation about his son's achievements after the date of filing. 
As this evidence postdates the filing of the petition, however, it cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient.6 The 
6 Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 FJd 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) affd in part 596 FJd 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that the "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 
596 FJd at 1122. 
Page 12 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 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 (Comm'r. 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 from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. 
Comm'r. 1972». 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of the petitioner's status in the field 
without specifically identifying contributions, explaining how they are original and providing 
specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the 
field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of prooe The petitioner also failed to submit corroborating evidence in existence prior to 
the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
The above evidence establishes that the petitioner has published some original theories and coached 
nationally ranked junior tennis players and is valued by his students and local colleagues. While the 
petitioner may have original theories, the record lacks evidence that these theories have been influential 
among other coaches at a level consistent with a contribution of major significance. In addition, while 
the petitioner's successful coaching of nationally ranked junior players may be a contribution to the 
clubs where he has worked, the record lacks evidence that successful coaching is an original 
contribution in the field of coaching as a whole. Rather, we find that this evidence is more relevant to 
whether the petitioner has played a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished 
reputation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As stated above, the petitioner has authored articles published in journals, mostly in journals affiliated 
with The petitioner has also published articles in Buletin Stintific and 
: Schiul: Tehnica, Metodica Organizare, Inot: Tehnica Invatare -
7 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5. Similarly, 
users need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United 
States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 13 
Perfectionare and Sesiunea Internationala de Comunicari Stiintifice. The petitioner did not provide 
any circulation or sales data for the journals and books. None of these materials postdate 2003. 
The director concluded that it was inherent for a tennis coach to author scholarly articles. We disagree. 
Regardless, the evidence meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
As discussed above, the petitioner has served as director of tournaments and director of the junior 
teams _here he has coached nationally ranked junior tennis players. Given the 
evidence of record in the aggregate, including the reference letters discussed in detail above and 
evidence not mentioned in this decision, the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence that meets the 
plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viiii). 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, we will review the 
evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
As stated above, _ has attested to the petitioner's services as a judge at unidentified 
competitions. The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to 
whether the evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's national or international acclaim. See 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Without more information about the competitions, we cannot evaluate 
whether the petitioner's alleged service as a judge is consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Similarly, even assuming that the petitioner judged potential faculty at_ such 
duties were internal to the university where he worked and, thus, not indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. Id 
Page 14 
The petitioner has authored articles and book chapters and, as stated above, we disagree with the 
director that such authorship is inherent to the occupation of tennis coach. Without evidence of the 
circulation of the journals or the sales data for the books, however, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner's authorship is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Moreover, given that the articles and book chapters are predate the filing of the petition by several 
years, they are not evidence of "sustained" national or international acclaim in 2009 when the 
petition was filed. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the petitioner has coached nationally ranked junior tennis competitors. 
While notable, merely coaching successfully at this level is not, by itself, indicative of or consistent 
with national or international acclaim.8 The remaining evidence of record is not persuasive evidence 
of sustained national or international acclaim for the reasons discussed above. 
Ultimately, for the reasons discussed in this section, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish 
the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
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 
tennis coach 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. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a tennis coach, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8 The only evidence that, by itself, is sufficient to establish eligibility for the classification sought is a one­
time achievement, a major internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).