dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

ldootiPgIng data Meted to 
l=VmtdePrb-M 
invssioad~ersoo.!m 
iiPuis=~Y -- 
U.S. Department of Homeland Sccurity 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
EAC 03 108 51509 2 a 2DUJ 
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. fj 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This 1s the decision of the Admin~strative Appeals Office In your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally dec~ded your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
f 
ni 
1' Robert P. Wiemarm, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. 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. Regarding the regulatory 
criterion relating to artistic exhibitions, the director noted that the petitioner is now a coach, not a competitor. 
On appeal, counsel makes unsupported characterizations about the petitioner's career. As with the initial brief, 
counsel discusses the petitioner's accomplishments generatly, with little attempt to explain how the petitioner 
meets at least three of the regulatory criteria, as required.' Counsel fails to even address the director's specific 
concerns as they relate to the regulatory criteria for the classification sought, such as the lack of certified 
translations of foreign language articles purportedly about the petitioner or evidence of the circulation of the 
publications that carried these articles, focusing instead on passing comments by the director regarding the 
petitioner's youth. 
While the petitioner's age is not necessarily an issue, especially in athletic sports where the competitors are 
often young and the alien competes at the top level, we do not find that the director's decision is based on the 
petitioner's age. Rather, the director unambiguously concluded that the petitioner did not meet any of the 
regulatory criteria. Thus, the director's passing reference to the petitioner's age is not reversible error. For the 
reasons discussed below, we concur with the director that the petitioner does not meet at least three of the 
regulatory criteria. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the foilowing subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
I Initially, counsel quoted the statute and a 1993 non-precedent decision by this office without any attempt to address the 
pertinent regulations that bind all officers of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. ji 204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204,5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to ctassify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an ice skating coach. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h) requires the beneficiary to "continue work in the area of expertise." While 
a competitor and a coach certainly share knowledge of ice dancing, the two rely on very different sets of 
basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation 
has been upheld in Federal Court. In Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. 111. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any 
profession in that field. For examplextraordinary ability as a baseball player does 
not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball 
industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Id. at 91 8. The court noted a consistent history in this area. Nevertheless, recently this office has recognized 
that there exists 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 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, we can 
consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary 
ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. Specifically, in 
such a case we will consider the level at which the alien acts as coach. 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. Thus, we will examine whether the petitioner has demonstrated his extraordinary 
ability as a coach or as an athlete. If the petitioner has demonstrated extraordinary ability as an athlete, we 
will consider the level at which he has successfully coached. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is. a major, international recognized award). Barring 
the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied- 
for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or uwards for 
excellence in thejieid of endeavor. 
Initially, counsel asserts that the Kolibri Ice Theater won the Russian title and the World Championship in 
Belgium in 1994 and the Russian championship and second place at the World Championship in 1995. While 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
some references attest to the petitioner's participation with this ice theater group, none of tbem appear to have 
first hand knowledge of this participation. Counsel further asserts that the petitioner won the following awards: 
(1) Second place at the Kirov Regional Club of Labor Unions in 1994, 
(2) A second degree diploma at the Qualifying Competition of the Specialized Figure 
Skating School in 1995, 
(3) A first degree diploma, M.S. Podgayevskaya prize in 1996, 
(4) A second degree diploma, "Grandfather Frost" Open Championship in 1997, 
(5) Junior World Championship in 1999, and 
(6) A first degree diploma, M.S. Podgayevskaya prize in 1999. 
Counsel also listed test certificates and certificates of participation. which are not awards or prizes. The 
petitioner submitted certificates for the following awards: 
(1) An undated diploma of "First Degree" for "finishing first among ice dancers competing 
at the level of candidates of masters of sport in the figure skating competition for the 
prize of M.S. Podgayevskaya" issued by the City of Perm; 
(2) A 1994 "Diploma" awarded "for finishing second in the club championship of figure 
skating at the level of candidates of masters of sport" issued by the City of Kirov; 
(3) A 1995 "Diploma of the second degree" awarded "for finishing second at the 
qualifying competition of the specialized figure skating school of Olympic reserves for 
children and youth in the category of ice dancing at the level of candidates of masters 
of sport" issued by the City of Perm Committee on Physical Training and Sports; 
(4) A 1996 "Diploma of the first degree" awarded "for finishing first among ice dancers 
competing at the level of the first class athletes in the figure skating competition for the 
prize of M.S. Podgayevskaya" issued by the City of Perm Committee for Physical 
Training and Sports; 
(5) A 1997 "Diploma of the second degree" awarded "for finishing second in the district's 
open championship of figure skating for the prizes of "Grandfather Frost" among ice 
dancers at the level of candidates of masters of sport" issued by the Sverdlovsk District 
of Perm; and 
(6) A Fourth Place Medalist certificate in Junior Dance at the 2001 Eastern Sectional 
Figure Skating Championships from the United States Figure Skating Association 
(USFSA). 
The petitioner indicated on his resume that he competed in competitive performances as a member of the 
Children's Ice Theater in 1993 through 1995, but failed to submit evidence of the results of these 
competitions. While some U.S. references attest t-chievements, they do not explain how they have 
first-hand knowledge of these awards. The letter from the Figure Skating Federation of Perm makes no mention 
The single translated foreign language article regarding dated in 1994, 
on the Russian Championship and was "well received" in Belgium, ut makes no mention 
of an award at that competition. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the awards were indicative of preeminence in 
the field of ice dancing. On appeal, counsel now claims the petitioner won the following awards: 
Russian National Championships (l994), EkLE%u in the Dance Category; 
World Championships (Belgium 1994), First; 
Kirov Regionals (Russia 1994), Second; 
World Championships (1 995),5kadAax; 
Russian National Championships (1 995), First; 
Specialized Figure Skating School Qualifying Competition (1996), First; 
Open Championship Figure Skating Championship (l997), Flr.Ft; 
Russian national Championships (l997), Iikd3ce in Dance Category; 
International Skating Union Junior World Championships (1998), First Place in the Ice 
Dance Category; and 
Bosnia and Herzegovina National Championship (1998) First Place in Junior Dance. 
The petitioner submits no new awards on appeal. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laztreano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 
1 983); Matter of Rumirez-Sanchez, 1 7 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1 980). 
The record contains no evidence of any national or international level awards or prizes as characterized by 
counsel, for example a "World Championship." Rather, the only awards documented in the record were 
awarded by the cities of Perm and Kirov and a U.S. association for a sectional fourth place finish. The record 
contains no evidence that athletes nationwide competed for any of these awards. Moreover, the petitioner failed 
to submit evidence explaining the levels of competition in Russia. Thus, the petitioner has not established that 
the "Candidates of Masters of Sport" are the top level of competition in Russia, as claimed by counse~.~ As 
stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Id. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion as a competitor. The evidence 
submitted is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim as a competitor. 
Moreover, the record lacks comparable evidence to meet this criterion as a coach, his intended occupation. 
While the petitioner submits some evidence relating to his students' achievements on appeal, the evidence does 
not indicate that any of his students have won nationally or internationally recognized awards at a senior level of 
competition. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the petitioner meets this criterion as a coach. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in ussociations in the field for which classi~cution is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, us judged by recognized national or internu!ionul 
experts in their disciplines c~filds. 
Initially, counsel noted that the petitioner is a member of the United States Figure Skating Association 
(USFSA). The petitioner submitted his USFSA test certificates and his membership card. The director 
concluded that the record lacked evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements 
of their members. 
3 
Counsel asserts that the Master of Sports in Ice Dancin is the hi hest level attainable in Russian Ice Dance and 
"equivalent to a Gold Medal in the U.S." The letter fro-School Director of specialized Figure Skating 
School of the Olympic Reserve for Children and Youth, asserts on1 that the etitioner "achieved the qualification of a 
Candidate of Master of Sports," without specifying its significance. asserts only that the petitioner was a 
member of the combined Perm Regional team, not a national team, that competed in Russian Youth Championships. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner was a soloist with the Ice Theater Company of South Korea and 
that he received USFSA certification in 18 ice dance components in two months, a process that, according to 
counsel, usualiy takes "years." Counsel further asserts that the petitioner competed as a member of the U.S. 
National Team. 
Counsel references a letter b s evidence of the petitioner's artici ation in the Ice Theater 
Company of South Korea. -no such asrertion. Regardless.~does not indicate any 
affiliation with that company. Thus, it is not clear how she would have first hand knowledge of the ~etitioner's . - - 
participation with that company. Russian Olympic ice dancing champion, asserts that in 
1997, NBC invited the soloist with the Ice Theatre in South Korea." 
a national ice dancing judge, makes a similar assertion. Neither nor 
how they have first had knowledge of this performance. Moreover, nothing in their letters 
was a "member" of a national team in South Korea. 
The record does not contain confirmation from USFSA regarding the length of time it usually takes an 
experienced ice dancer from another country to get certitied in 18 ice dance components. 
The petitioner submitted certificates from the USFSA recognizing the petitioner as a United States Figure 
Skating Team Member competing in the Czech Skate in October 2000 and the Ukrainian Souvenir in September 
2000. The petitioner's subsequent participation with USFSA was in sectional and junior competitions. 
"Membership" in a national team that competes in the top international competitions, such as the Olympics, can 
be comparable evidence sufficient to meet this criterion as a competitor. The record does not contain any 
confirmation from USFSA regarding the number of dancers who were members of the U.S. Figure skating 
Team and whether this team is the highest national team the U.S. fields. former figure skater and 
part-time coach who met the petitioner in 2002, asserts that the Czech S Souvenir are Junior 
Grand Prix competitions. ~hus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion as an athlete. 
Further, the record contains no evidence relating to this criterion involving coaching, the petitioner's intended 
occupation. 
Published materials aboul the alien in profe.ssional or major trade publications or other mujor media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classrJication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the materirial, and any neceks:\.scrry translation. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted numerous foreign language articles in unidentified publications. The petitioner 
submitted a single translation of a 1994 article about the Kolibri Children's Theater on Ice that does not mention 
the petitioner by name. The translation does not identify the publication. Finally, the petitioner submitted an 
interview with a figure skating judge in a U.S. figure skating event program. The interview does not relate to 
the petitioner or his career. 
The director concluded that without complete and literal translations and evidence of the publications' 
circulation, it could not be determined whether the articles were specifically about the petitioner or that the 
publication qualifies as major media. On appeal, counsel does not address the director's concerns. The 
petitioner submits articles about the petitioner in the PIain Deuler and unpublished promotional materials for 
lessons taught by the petitioner. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the materials be "about" the 
petitioner, that they be "published" and that they appear in "major media." The regulation further requires that 
any foreign language materials be supported by "any necessary translation." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.2(b)(3) provides: 
Any document containing foreign language submitted to the Service shall be accompanied by a 
full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, 
and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English. 
Thus, the director correctly dismissed the foreign language articles based on their lack of complete certified 
translations and evidence of the publications' circulation. Despite being placed on notice by the regulation itself 
and the director's notice of denial, the petitioner fails to submit the translations and evidence of circulation on 
appeal. Thus, we must uphold the director's findings regarding the foreign language articles that were 
unaccompanied by translations. 
The single translation is for an article that does not mention the petitioner by name. Thus, that article cannot be 
said to be "about" the petitioner, as required by the plain language of the regulation. The articles submitted on 
appeal appear in the Plain Dealer. While they are about the petitioner, the petitioner has not established that 
this publication has a national distribution. In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion as an athlete. 
The unpublished promotional materials relating to the petitioner's services as a coach, whileprinted, cannot be 
said to constitute published materials in major media. Thus, the petitioner does not meet this criterion as a 
coach. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge ofthe work ofothers in the 
same or un alliedfield of spectjicatzon for which clussflcation is sought. 
Counsel never directly asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion. We acknowledge that the petitioner has 
performed coaching services for the Brewster Figure Skating Club and the Norwich Figure Skating club. The 
petitioner seeks to enter the United States to work as a coach. Evaluating one's students is inherent to the 
occupation of coach and, thus, is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. The 
record lacks evidence that the petitioner has judged significant ice dancing competitions. Thus, the petitioner 
has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientijk, scholurly, artistic, uthletic, or hu,sineLv.ss-related contributions of 
major siprJicance in the#eld. 
The petitioner relies on reference letters to meet this criterion. The director concluded that letters cannot serve 
as the sole basis of eligibility. Rather, the information in the letters must be evaluated by Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) and corroborated by the record. 
We concur with the director. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. CIS may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter qf Caron International, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS 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; CIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS 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 Sof$cci, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter qf Treusure Craft 
of CaEifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Given the statutory requirement for "extensive 
documentation" and the ten regulatory criteria requiring specific evidence of accomptishments, we must 
conclude that evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new 
tnaterials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or 
international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
We note that this criterion is separate from awards and prizes. A separate criterion also exists for participation 
on national teams that compete at the highest international level. If the requirement that a petitioner must meet 
at least three criteria to establish eligibility is to have any meaning, such athletic achievements cannot be 
considered contributions of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. See WuIlrrs v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 5 19 U.S. 202, 209 
(1997); Bailey v. US., 5 16 U.S. 137, 145 (1995). To be considered a contribution of major significance in 
the field of athletics, the contribution must influence the field, such as popularizing a new style or setting a 
new standard to which others aspire, such as a world record. It can be expected that a coach making 
contributions of major significance will have trained an unusual number of champions. 
skating Director at Nonvich Municipal Ice Rink, attests to the level of the petitioner's training 
and skills. She asserts that he "will be able to make significant contributions to the future of the sport of figure - 
skating as a skater and more importantly as a coach who will be responsible for training the next generation of 
American competitors." She does not identify any past contributions of major significance. The other letters 
from students and colleagues provide similar information. 
Wendy Mlinar, a competition judge, asserts that the petitioner's past experience in Ice Theater, a new concept in 
the United States, is unique. She speculates that the petitioner, currently building a clientele at a skating club, 
"in the area." She notes the lack of male ice dancing coaches in the United 
Assuming that to be true, it does not establish the petitioner's past 
to the field as a whole.provides general praise of the 
+ petitioner's accomplishments and skills, with little explanation of how the petitioner has influenced the field of 
jce dancing. 
The letters on appeal do not focus on the petitioner's contributions as an athlete. We cannot conclude that the 
petitioner's athletic accomplishments rise to the level of contributions of major significance in the field. The 
record lacks evidence that the petitioner is renowned for influencing the field as an athlete. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits letters from the parents of the petitioner's students attesting to his 
accomplishments as a coach. They assert that the petitioner has taught his students techniques they did not 
previously know and successfully trained them to win regional championships and a national championship at 
the intermediate level. They praise his character and attest to the benefits his students have enjoyed. 
The appellate letters do not establish the petitioner's influence beyond his students. The fact that he is teaching 
children techniques not previously taught to them does not indicate that these techniques are unusual in the field 
or that these techniques have been popularized by the petitioner. The record lacks evidence that he is 
responsible for coaching an unusual number of national champions in the United States. While counsel asserts 
that the petitioner is a guest instructor at various clubs, the record lacks evidence that this activity has lead to a 
nationwide influence, as opposed to regional. While the petitioner is clearly a skilled coach, skill alone is not a 
contribution of major significance to the field. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion as a coach. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
This criterion is most applicable to visual artists, not athletes. It is inherent to the field of athletics to compete, 
not every competition is an exclusive artistic exhibition or showcase such that participation is indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim. That said, participation in an exhibition of top ice dancers 
could serve as comparable evidence to meet this criterion. 
Initially, counsel asserted that in 1997, the petitioner participated as a soloist in ice theater in South Korea. As 
discussed above, the record contains no confirmation of this participation from officials at NBC or Korean 
officials. The references that do attest to this participation do not explain their first-hand knowledge of the 
petitioner's participation. Moreover, the record lacks evidence of the exclusiveness and significance of this 
event. 
Counsel quoted attesting to the petitioner's participation in 1999 in a television 
special honoring opening ceremonies at the 2000 United States Figure Skating 
Championships in Cleveland Ohio. While impressive.dential$ do not explain how he has 
first hand knowledge of the petitioner's participation in these events. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter fro-who asserts that the petitioner was selected to skate 
in the opening ceremonies of the 2000 championship in 0hi- however, asserts that 200 "local" 
skaters auditioned, suggesting that selection for participation is not indicative of national acclaim. We note that 
the event was primarily a competition in which the petitioner did not compete, not an exhibition featuring the 
petitioner. 
While counsel reiterates the claim that the petitioner appeared on television in 1999 in a tribute to Scott 
Hamilton, the record lacks primary evidence to support that assertion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2) 
provides: 
Submitting seconduy evidence und afidavits. (i) General. The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. If a required 
document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or cannot be obtained, an 
applicant or petitioner must demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as church or 
school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence also does not exist or 
4 
Mr. Sretenski competed at the Olympics, toured with "Starts on Ice," and has coached National, International, World 
and Olympic ice dance teams. These credentials suggest that the top of the petitioner's field is a higher than the level he 
has attained. 
cannot be obtained, the applicant or petitioner must demonstrate the unavailability of both the 
required document and retevant secondary evidence, and submit two or more affidavits, sworn 
to or affirmed by persons who are not parties to the petition who have direct personal 
knowledge of the event and circumstances. Secondary evidence must overcome the 
unavailability of primary evidence, and affidavits must overcome the unavailability of both 
primary and secondary evidence. 
The petitioner has not established that primary evidence of this performance is unavailable. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion as an athlete. The record 
contains no evidence relating to this criterion in the area of coaching. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign~@cantly high remunemtion for services, 
in relation to others in the$eld. 
The initial job letter, dated December 23,2002, asserts that Nonvich Municipal Ice Rink will pay the petitioner 
an annual wage of $35,000. The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that this wage was 
comparable with the top ice dancing coaches nationally. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter dated January 
12, 2005 from the general manager of Nonvich Municipal Ice Rink asserting that the petitioner's hourly rate is 
$60. The petitioner submitted evidence that the Level 1 wage for coaches and scouts in Connecticut is $14,580 
and the Level 2 wage in the same area is $40,010. 
The record lacks evidence that $60 was the petitioner's hourly rate as of the date of filing. The petitioner must 
establish his eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg. Comm. 1971). Moreover, the petitioner must establish that the wages he receives are comparable with the 
top members of his field nationally, not locally. The record lacks evidence that the petitioner receives the full 
$60 per hour, or whether that is what his employer charges his students. Moreover, the record lacks evidence of 
the top wages in the field nationally. In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meet this 
criterion as a coach. The record contains no evidence relating to this criterion as an athlete. 
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. The petitioner has not established that he meets three criteria as a coach 
or even as an athlete. As the petitioner has not established extraordinary ability as an athlete, as defined in the 
regulations, we need not consider whether he has successfully coached at the national level such that coaching is 
within his area of expertise. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a ice dancing 
coach, or even a competitor, 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 an ice dancing competitor, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Finally, the AAO notes that the petitioner is currently in the United States as a P-1 nonimmigrant, a visa 
classification that requires the alien to perform as an athlete, either individually or as part of a team, at an 
Page I I 
internationally recognized level of performance, and that the alien seek to enter the United States "temporarily 
and solely for the purpose of performing as such an athlete." See section 214(c)(4)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
9: 1 184(c)(4)(A). The current record is devoid of any evidence to indicate that the petitioner is performing as an 
athlete at an internationally recognized level or that he is in the United States "temporarily and solely" for the 
purpose of performing as such an athlete. 
While CIS approved at least one P-I nonimmigrant visa petition tiled on behalf of the petitioner, the prior 
approval does not preclude CIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly 
phrased standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after CIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See e.g. Q Dutu Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA 
US v. US Depc. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 
1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because CIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 
immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Dutu Consulting, Inc, v. 
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texus A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 
(5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude CIS from denying an extension of the original 
visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
As the petitioner is no longer competing, the AAO finds that the director was justified in departing from the 
previous nonimmigrant approval by denying the present immigrant visa petition. 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Mutter of Church Scientology 
Intrrnutional, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must 
treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Swsex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th 
Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1 988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf 
of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. 
Louisicrnu Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), a&%', 248 F.3d 1 139 (5th Cir. 2001), 
cert, denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
The director is instructed to review the previous nonimmigrant approval for possible revocation, pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(p)(1 O)(iii). 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal wit1 be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.