dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

(b)(6)
DATE: 
FEB 2 7 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Imm igration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
'
�hank y� 
�oscn::;:=-
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
In her initial filing, the petitioner indicated that she sought classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability in athletics as a table tennis player and coach, pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). In response to the director's 
request for evidence (RFE) and on appeal, however, the petitioner asserted that she qualified for the 
exclusive classification as a table tennis coach and stated her intent to work as a table tennis coach in 
the United States. The Act makes visas available to petitioners who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The director determined that 
the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), 
which requires documentation of the petitioner's one-time achievement or evidence that the 
petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erred because she meets the criteria under the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii) and (v). In addition, on appeal, the petitioner asserts 
that she has established her eligibility through the presentation of comparable evidence under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the director 
that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), evidence that she satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or comparable evidence that 
establishes her eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that she 
has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we 
will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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, 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate her sustained acclaim and the recognition of her achievements in the field through evidence 
of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then she must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the 
ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or comparable evidence that 
establishes her eligibility under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
The submission of evidence relating to a one-time achievement, at least three criteria or comparable 
evidence, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence 
is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a 
final merits determination); see also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) 
(affirming USCrS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia 
v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCrS appropriately applied the 
two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 r&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is 
to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quali ty" and that users examines 
"each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both i ndi vidually and within 
the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In this case, in her initial filing, the petitioner asserted in the cover letter that "she is [an] 
internationally recognized table tennis player and coach." In part 5 of her petition, the petitioner 
stated that her occupation is "Athletes & Related Workers," and provided no information on her 
proposed employment in the United States. In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner asserted 
that she is "an alien of extraordinary ability as a coach in the field of Table Tennis." She further 
provided evidence of her intent to work as a table tennis coach in the United States, and submitted an 
employment offer for a table tennis coach position with the 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she qualifies for the exclusive classitication "as a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
coach for table tennis." The record lacks evidence that the petitioner intends to be a table tennis 
player in the United States. Rather, the evidence shows that the petitioner intends to be a table tennis 
coach in the United States. As the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that she seeks to 
enter the United States as a table tennis player, at issue in this case is her eligibility as a table tennis 
coach. Accordingly, this decision will focus on the petitioner's claim that she is eligible for the 
exclusive classification as a table tennis coach. 
While a table tennis player and coach certainly share knowledge of table tennis, the two rely on very 
different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are not the same area of 
expertise. See Lee v. Zig lar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Nevertheless, there does 
exist a nexus between playing and coaching a given sport. To assume that every extraordinary 
athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, however, would be too speculative. To resolve this 
issue, the following balance is appropriate. In a case where the beneficiary has clearly achieved 
recent national or international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of 
coaching at a national level, USCIS can, in the context of the final merits determination, consider the 
totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary 
ability consistent with a conclusion that coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. 
Specifically, in such a case the level at which the petitioner acts as coach is a consideration. A coach 
who has an established successful history of coaching athletes who compete regularly at the national 
level has a credible claim; a coach of novices does not. In this matter, however, as the petitioner has 
not submitted qualifying evidence as either a coach or an athlete under at least three criteria, the 
proper conclusion is that the applicant has not satisfied the regulatory requirement of three types of 
evidence. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through the evidence that she is the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize or Olympic medal. 
Indeed, the director concluded that the evidence did not establish the bene ficiary' s receipt of a 
major, internationally recognized award. On appeal, the petitioner has not specifically challenged 
the director's conclusion. As such, as initial evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of 
the ten types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The petitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion, because she has not shown that her 
competitive history as a tennis player is indicative of her extraordinary ability as a table tennis 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims 
she meets or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
coach. As discussed, competitive athletics and coaching are not within the same area of expertise. 
See Lee, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 918. As the petitioner is seeking the exclusive classification as a table 
tennis coach, she must present evidence of her receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence as a coach. 
In addition, the petitioner has not shown that the awards and prizes that she has received as a table 
tennis player are nationally or internationally recognized. The record includes the petitioner's 
resume that lists the petitioner's competitive history in 2007 and 2008. The petitioner has also 
submitted award certificates showing that she competed and received first, second or third placement 
in competitions held in Texas. For example, the petitioner has submitted a 
certificate showing that she finished in third place in the 
held in Texas. The petitioner has also submitted a article in 
about the competition. The article states that the competition had 
participating athletes from The article further states that 
the event organizer "reiterated his fervent desire to continue building the tournament 
into a truly world-class event." The petitioner has not shown that prizes or awards from this event 
are nationally or internationally recognized. Although reported on the 
competition, the petitioner has not shown that the magazine only reports competitions that issue 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
The petitioner has provided no evidence relating to the remammg competitions in which she 
participated, such as how many athletes participated, the participating athletes' skill level, or how 
many athletes received awards in the competitions. The petitioner has also provided no evidence 
showing the reputation of the prizes or awards from these competitions or evidence showing that 
individuals not associated with the organizing entities or the participating athletes consider the prizes 
or awards as nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that she has received qualifying awards or prizes as a table 
tennis coach. The petitioner's resume provides a list entitled " " showing the 
accomplishmen ts of athletes, all in the age categories of under 21, whom the petitioner has trained. 
The petitioner has not shown that prizes or awards that her students received constitute her receipt of 
the prizes or awards, as required under the plain language of the criterion. In addition, the petitioner 
has provided insufficient evidence showing that prizes or awards from the competitions in which her 
students have achieved success are nationally or internationally recognized. Notably, the 
competitions have age restrictions. The petitioner has not shown that prizes and awards from these 
competitions, which are not open to athletes of all ages, are nationally or internationally recognized 
in the sport of table tennis. The petitioner has not submitted any reporting of the competitions or the 
competition results in nationally or internationally circulated major trade publications or major 
media. Although the record includes evidence of media coverage of some of the competitions, the 
coverage is local or regional in nature. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of her receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In support of her assertion that she meets this criterion, the petitioner has submitted evidence relating 
to a March interview, an article published in the and two 
articles published in the The petitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion. 
First, it is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the 
time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l 
Comrn'r 1971). In other words, the petitioner cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation 
of future published material in major media. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 
160 (Reg'l Cornm'r 1977); Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Cornm'r 1998) 
(adopting Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that USCIS cannot 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") As the petitioner 
filed her petition on November 29, 2013, she may not rely on a March interview to 
establish that she meets this criterion. In addition, the evidence submitted, which includes a number 
of photographs, does not establish that the petitioner was interviewed by The petitioner 
has submitted no documentary proof from verifying the interview or providing 
information on the content of the interview. Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that the 
interview constitutes published material in major media. The petitioner has 2rovided a photocopy of 
business card that bears a Some of the 
photographs in the record also show a camera bearing the ' Although 
might constitute major media, the p etitioner has not shown that ' also constitutes major 
media. The petitioner has presented no evidence relating to 
Second, the article is not about the petitioner, relating to her work as a table 
tennis coach. The article is entitled ' 
and it is published in the Schools Section oJ The article is about 
and makes no mention of the petitioner. The petitioner appears in a photograph with Ms. 
and is mentioned in the photograph's caption as one of Ms. two coaches. The petitioner has 
not shown that her photograph and the photograph caption constitute published material about her, 
relating to her work as a table tennis coach, as required under the plain language of the criterion. In 
addition, the petitioner has not presented any evidence relating to such as its 
circulation, distribution or reach, to establish that it constitutes a professional or major trade 
publication or major media. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Third, the petitioner has not shown that the is a professional or a major trade 
publication or major media. The petitioner has not provided information relating to the publication, 
such as its focus or the areas of its reporting, which might show that it is a professional or trade 
publication. The petitioner has also not provided information relating to the publication's 
circulation, distribution or reach, which might show that it is major media. In addition, the petitioner 
has not shown that the articles in the are about the petitioner, relating to her work as 
a table tennis coach. Rather, the articles are about young athletes she has trained. The articles list 
the petitioner as the athletes' coach. This limited information about the petitioner is insufficient to 
show that the articles are about the petitioner, relating to her work as a coach. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted published material about her in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, relating to her work in the field for which classification is 
sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
To show that she meets this criterion, the petitioner must show her contributions are original, such 
that she is the first person or one of the first people to have made the contributions, and that her 
contributions are of major significant in the sport of table tennis. Regardless of the field, the plain 
language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact 
beyond one's employer and clients or customers. See Visinscdia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a 
finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in 
the field as a whole). The evidence in the record, including a number of reference letters, does not 
show the petitioner meets this criterion. Rather, the evidence shows that the petitioner was a 
competitive table tennis player, and has now been helping other table tennis players advance in the 
sport. The petitioner has not shown that her contributions are either original or of major significance 
in the sport of table tennis. 
According to Head Coach of the the petitioner "is a great coach, knows how 
to stick to the basic principal and inspires players to continue improving their table tennis skills." 
Ms. further states that who won first and second place, 
respectively, at the "have benefitted a lot from [the 
petitioner]. " According to , President of the the petitioner coaches the 
young players. Mr. states that the petitioner "is a talent[ ed] coach, [and] knows 
how to assess player's technical and mental condition during the games." Neither Ms. nor 
Mr. has provided sufficient details relating to the petitioner's work as a coach. They also do 
not explain what the petitioner has done as a coach that is original or explain what the petitioner has 
done that constitutes contributions of major significance in the sport. The petitioner might have had 
an impact on some young athletes. The plain language of the criterion, however, requires the 
petitioner to show original contributions of major significance in the field as a whole. Neither Ms. 
letter nor Mr. letter demonstrates that the petitioner has met this criterion. 
Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or customers. See 
Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35. 
Similarly, although 
and a member of the a member of the 
indicate in their letters that the petitioner has had an impact on their training, the evidence 
does not demonstrate that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the 
sport of table tennis as a whole. According to Mr. October 15, 2012 letter, the petitioner 
helped him "further enhance [his] table tennis skills to better position [him] in the 
Mr. states that the petitioner volunteered to help him upon his request and that he has 
"benefitted from [the petitioner's] expert advice and excellent skills." He does not assert, however, 
that the petitioner was one of his "various coaches for different skills." In his June 22, 2014 letter, 
Mr. states that the petitioner helped him win his Once 
again, however, he does not suggest that the petitioner was his coach, stating instead that he hopes 
"she can become" his coach. According to Ms. in the the petitioner "gave 
[her] some great advice that helped [her] win several key competitions. It helped [her] understand 
and realize what improvement [she] need[ ed] for future development. [The petitioner] is one of the 
best coaches [she] ever had before. [The petitioner's] critical assessment and advice have enabled 
young players to continue to achieve national rankings in their prospective age divisions." As with 
Mr. Ms. does not assert that she competed under the petitioner's tutelage as a coach. 
The letters from Mr. and Ms. show that the petitioner provided advice that has impacted 
their skills, but they do not show that the petitioner has had an impact in the sport as a whole. In Mr. 
June 22, 2014 letter, he states that the petitioner's training methods include "massive 
physical training," "creat[ing] a training environment .. . very close to the competition one," a 
"special way to help athlete[ s] get rid of state of tension" and "quickly adjust[ing] to change [from] 
passive to active." The petitioner has not shown that these training methods are her original training 
methods, such that she has developed them or she is the first person or one of the first people to have 
used them. In addition, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing the level of 
impact she has had on Mr. As stated above, Mr. does not specifically assert that the 
petitioner was his coach and, notably, Mr. profile lists seven coaches. The 
petitioner is not one of them. Also, none of the articles in the record about Mr. indicates that 
the petitioner has been Mr. coach or has had a significant impact on Mr. s skills. 
The petitioner has also submitted reference letters from parents of young athletes whom she has 
trained. According to his daughter 
has been taking lessons from the petitioner for the past two years, during which time she won 
awards at the and other events. Mr. states that the petitioner has "given 
more confidence in preparing for big tournaments like fthel 
and helped her stay focused on her goals." According to her (laughter 
"performance improved rapidly and she [became a] member of [the] 
' As noted, at issue is not the petitioner's impact on a particular individual athlete, the plain 
language of the criterion requires a showing of original contributions of major significance to the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
sport of table tennis as a whole. The letters relating to the impact that the petitioner has had on 
athletes she has trained do not demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion. While an athlete's 
receipt of an medal while under the petitioner's primary tutelage may constitute 
comparable evidence under this criterion, the petitioner has not submitted such evidence. 
The evidence in the record includes other reference letters from current and former table tennis 
players, praising the petitioner's skills as a player and coach. For example, according to 
Executive Vice President of and a former table tennis 
player and coach, the petitioner has been coaching in Italy and Japan since 2005 and she has "made 
contributions to promote table tennis and to improve the skill level of table tennis players." Mr. 
further states that the petitioner "will continue her efforts to make contributions to help the 
development of table tennis and to help improve the skill level of table tennis players in the United 
States." According to a table tennis player, the petitioner "possesses [the] complete 
toolset of an extraordinary athlete." Ms. states that she hopes the petitioner "can introduce the 
advanced table tennis technique and her experience to make contributions to the development of 
table tennis in the United States." According to the petitioner's former teammate, the 
petitioner "was a coach in several countries. Her students and team members have many outstanding 
results. [The petitioner] is a very experienced table tennis coach." General praise and approval of 
the petitioner's ability as a table tennis player or coach, and predictions of the petitioner's potential 
impact in the sport, however, do not establish that the petitioner has made original contributions of 
major significance in the sport. 
Some of the reference letters provide conclusory statements about the petitioner's talent and skills as 
a table tennis coach. They do not, however, provide specific information on any contributions that 
the petitioner has made in the sport as a whole. For example, according to a member of 
the Board of Directors of the petitioner "has established 
herself as an extraordinary ability alien in the field of Table Tennis . . . such that she has 
extraordinary ability in the field of athletics which have been demonstrated by sustained national and 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in her field of Table Tennis." 
Other than making conclusory statements about the petitioner's accomplishments and acclaim, Mr. 
does not provide any evidence or examples in support of his statements. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 
1997). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. United 
StatesAtt'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The reference letters in the record, including those not specifically discussed above, contain 
assertions of acclaim without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples 
of how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. As noted, 
merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at 
*5. We need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 17. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Vague, solicited letters from colleagues and clients that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the sport are insufficient. Kazarian 
v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).2 The 
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 Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible 
for making the final determination regarding a petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
users may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they 
support the petitioner'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. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also 
Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding our decision to give minimal weight to vague, solicited letters from colleagues or 
associates that do not provide details on contributions of major significance in the field). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of her original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business -related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The director concluded in his decision that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner has not contested the director's conclusion. As such, the petitioner has abandoned this 
issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 
4711885 at *9. Accordingly, the petitioner not has presented evidence that she has performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may 
submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she has presented comparable evidence that establishes her 
eligibility for the exclusive classification. Specifically, she points to a reference letter from Mr. 
2 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
peti6oner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
and employment offers from Mr. Mr. and the The letters and the 
employment offers do not constitute comparable evidence establishing the petitioner's eligibility. 
First, as discussed, Mr. makes conclusory statements about the petitioner's extraordinary 
ability and acclaim, but does not provided any specific information or point to any specific evidence 
in support of the conclusory statements. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108; 
Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5. We need not accept primarily conclusory assertions 
as evidence of the petitioner's eligibility. See 175 6, Inc., 7 45 F. Supp. at 17. 
Second, offers of employment from Mr. · Mr. and the do not establish the 
petitioner's extraordinary ability as a table tennis coach. Although Mr. a member of the 
states that he has been working with the petitioner, the evidence shows that the 
petitioner has not been his coach. At the time the petitioner filed the petition, she submitted Mr. 
profile indicating that he had seven coaches, but the petitioner was not listed as one 
of them. Moreover, the assertion in his letter that he "hope[ s] [the petitioner] can become" his coach 
is not an actual job offer. Finally, inherent to the profession of coaching is to receive employment 
offers from athletes and sports clubs. The petitioner's ability to secure employment opportunities is 
a separate evidentiary requirement from the criteria that can show extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and (4). See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5)(requiring evidence of an intent to continue 
working in the area of expertise, including, as one example, letters from prospective employers). In 
short, a review of the evidence in the record in the aggregate does not establish that the petitioner 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)(3); see also section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be 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 field of endeavor," 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)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.3 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).