dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 1 3 2015 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
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 Immigration 
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://www .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. 
Thank you, � 
� ( ) ;--;:::-Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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, a tennis center, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" 
in athletics, as its director of junior high performance, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), which makes visas available 
to aliens 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 beneficiary's 
one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erred because the United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf 
of the beneficiary. In addition, the petitioner asserts that the director: 
. . . fail[ ed] to understand the significance of the evidence provided, and failed to 
understand the parameters of the field of athletics which the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary operate within and not only the significance of the awards [the] 
Beneficiary has received but the results which have obtained as a result of his work to 
date. 
Within the brief, the petitioner discusses the beneficiary's awards and contributions. Absent a 
finding that the beneficiary's coaching award, which postdates the filing of the instant petition, is a 
qualifying one-time achievement, the petitioner's assertions in the alternative relate to two of the 
regulatory criteria whereas the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires evidence that satisfies 
three criteria. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not established the 
beneficiary's eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not 
submitted qualifying evidence of the beneficiary's a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the' 
beneficiary is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that 
the beneficiary 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: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
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. !d.; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the beneficiary's 
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 a petitioner 
must submit sufficient qualifying evidence showing that the beneficiary meets at least three of the 
ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, 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 USCIS' 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 USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Previous 0-1 Petition 
While USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS 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 US CIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. United States Dep 't of 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989). We are 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., 
Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). We are not required to 
treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 
1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our 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, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of 
a service center as the law is clear that an agency is not bound to follow an earlier determination as 
to a visa applicant where that initial determination was based on a misapplication of the law. Glara 
Fashion, Inc. v. Holder, 11 CIV. 889 PAE, 2012 WL 352309 *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012); Royal 
Siam v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir. 2007); Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172, 177 (D. 
Mass. 2000) (Dkt. 10); Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 
1999), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can establish the beneficiary's 
sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary's achievements have been 
recognized in the field of endeavor by presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is a 
major, internationally recognized award. In response to the director's Request for Evidence (RFE), 
the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's receipt of the Coach of the Year 
Award constitutes a qualifying one-time achievement under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The evidence in the record does not support this assertion. According to an October letter 
from the United States Tennis Association (USTA) the 
UST A selected the beneficiary as the recipient of 
Coach of the Year Award. The letter states that the award, which USTA 
would issue at a December ceremony, "recognizes the outstanding individual 
efforts of a coach in the ' and it congratulates the beneficiary 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims 
to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
on "all of [his] hard work in lifting up the game, not only in Nevada, but also throughout the entire 
." A document entitled "UST A Honorees" similarly 
provides that the beneficiary received the Coach of the Year Award in recognition of 
his "out-standing efforts of a developmental coach in the USTA " 
First, the petitioner filed the petition on September Mr. letter is dated October 
and the award ceremony was December all after the date of filing. A petitioner must 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date 
after the beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Moreover, USCIS cannot "consider facts that 
come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Matter of /zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (adopting the reasoning in Matter ofBardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981)). 
Regardless, the evidence in the record shows that the beneficiary's award is regional in nature. The 
petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that the award is recognized on an international, or 
even a national, level, or that individuals not associated with the award-issuing organization 
recognize the award. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO 10, 2007 WL 9229758, at *1, 6-7 
(C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 31 7 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to 
rely on the promotional assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major 
media). The petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary's award, issued by a regional section 
within the USTA, is a major, internationally recognized award, as required under the regulation. 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one­
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739 (Sept. 19, 1990). Congress' example of a 
one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. /d. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, 
stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser internationally recognized award could serve to meet only 
one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which a petitioner must meet at least three. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in 
the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the 
public at large and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could 
constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example 
provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the 
beneficiary's field as one of the top awards in that field. Congress entrusted the decision of which 
awards other than the Nobel Prize constitute a major, internationally recognized award to the 
administrative process, where USCIS does not abuse its discretion provided it reaches a rational 
decision after considering all of the evidence the petitioner submits, including the level of media 
coverage of the event. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 133; Rijal, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 1345-46. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
In this case, the petitioner has not shown through its evidence that the beneficiary's 
Coach of the Year Award, issued by the USTA constitutes a 
major, internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. Barring the 
beneficiary's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which the 
petitioner must show the beneficiary satisfies to meet the basic eligibility requirements. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internat ionally recognized pr izes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record does not 
support this conclusion. We may deny an application or petition that does not comply with the 
technical requirements of the law even if the director does not identify all of the grounds for denial 
in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. Dep 't of Just ice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The record shows that the beneficiary received a : Coach of the Year Award 
from the USTA As discussed, this award postdates the filing of the petition 
and is regional in nature. The petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that the beneficiary's 
award is recognized on a national or international level. Indeed, in his June letter, 
Senior Counsel, USTA, does not discuss the beneficiary's 
Coach of the Year Award from the USTA 1 as one of the 
beneficiary's accomplishments as a tennis coach. Similarly, a coach for the USTA 
also does not mention the beneficiary's receipt of this award as one of 
his coaching accomplishments. 
The record includes evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of certificates and award� when he was a 
tennis player for the . While a tennis player and 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. See Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. 
Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (upholdinf a conclusion that competitive athletics and coaching 
are not within the same area of expertise). Regardless, the petitioner has not shown that the 
certificates and awards are nationally or internationally recognized. Rather, they appear to be 
collegiate level certificates and awards limited to the "Mountain West" and "Mountain" regions. 
Because the beneficiary's awards that predate the filing of the petition are for his accomplishments 
as a competitor and are regional, the beneficiary's accomplishments do not satisfy this criterion. 
2 USCIS does recognize a nexus between playing and coaching. Specifically, in cases where a beneficiary demonstrates 
recent acclaim as an athlete by satisfying three criteria as an athlete, USCIS will look at whether other evidence confirms 
that coaching is within that beneficiary's area of expertise for purposes of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). The petitioner in this 
matter, however, does not contend that the beneficiary satisfies three criteria as an athlete and the beneficiary's awards as 
an athlete are not recent. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation of the beneficiary's 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In support of this criterion, the petitioner has submitted a number of reference letters. The evidence 
in the record, including the reference letters, however, does not establish that the petitioner meets 
this criterion. The petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary's contributions are both original 
and of major significance. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase "major 
significance" are not superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple 
Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoted inAPWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d 
Cir. 2003). Contributions of major significance connotes that the beneficiary's work has already 
significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. 
_ a tennis coach, states that the UST A which "is 
- -
responsible for identifying, training and developing the best young tennis talent in the country," 
granted the beneficiary, as one of a select number of coaches, access to the division's Fair Play 
Athlete Management panel, a central exchange of data and resources. Mr. further asserts 
that USTA "utilizes a number of [the beneficiary's] online lesson plans through 
the Fair Play System; and the national coaches and players have benefited greatly thereby." The 
petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that the beneficiary's lesson plans are 
original, such that he has developed or created the lessons plans, or that he is the first person or one 
of the first people to have used the lesson plans. Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient evidence showing the impact of the lesson plans in the sport of tennis as a whole. The 
evidence in the record does not indicate how many tennis coaches and players have used the lesson 
plans, how frequently they have used the lesson plans or how substantially the lesson plans have 
improved the players' games, which might show the impact of the lesson plans. Mr. 
conclusory statement that coaches and players "have benefited greatly" from the lesson plans is 
insufficient to show the lesson plans' impact in the sport. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Cornm'r 1972)). We need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). 
The remaining reference letters praise the beneficiary's ability and qualification as a tennis coach, 
they do not, however, establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion, because they do not provide 
sufficient evidence showing the beneficiary has done anything original as a tennis coach, such that 
he is the first or one of the first people to have done it, or that what he has done is of major 
significance in the sport of tennis, such that it fundamentally changed or significantly advanced the 
sport as a whole. According to _ a top ranking U.S. professional tennis player, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
beneficiary's "training acumen and technical expertise are equal to or greater than other professional 
coaches [Mr. has] seen and worked with." According to a tennis coach and a 
former professional tennis player, the beneficiary "brings a trained eye and feel for the game as a 
result of his unique playing and coaching experiences and overall dedication to learning and teaching 
the game at the highest level." According to , a former professional tennis player, 
the beneficiary "is amongst the best coaches in the tennis profession." Mr. states that the 
beneficiary "is a cream of the crop coach who would add significant knowledge, experience and 
expertise to the regional training center in the , and in turn to 
American junior tennis in general." The reference letters, including those not specifically 
mentioned, do not establish that the beneficiary's coaching methods are original or unique, or that 
they are of major significance in the sport. The reference letters lack specificity and detail and are 
mostly conclusory in nature. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 17 (we need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions). 
The evidence in the record shows that the beneficiary coached , who was a former 
number one tennis player in the world when she signed a contract with the beneficiary. The 
petitioner initially submitted an unsigned statement indicating that Ms. ranking rose from 
16 to 14 under the beneficiary's tutelage. This unsigned statement is not probative evidence. Mr. 
states that the beneficiary "made a positive difference in 
_ 
_'s game in a very 
short amount of time and she had very good results during their partnership." Mr. states that 
the beneficiary "did a superb job" when he worked with Ms. . Mr. states that the 
beneficiary was "able to make improvements in [Ms. J game when there was very little 
room to do so because development at the highest levels is difficult to achieve." The petitioner has 
not shown that coaching a former number 1 tennis player for an unspecific length of time is original, 
as Ms. had other coaches when she was ranked number one before working with the 
beneficiary. 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 Visinscaia, 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). 
We may consider major prizes and awards an athlete received under the primary tutelage of a coach 
as comparable evidence in determining whether the coach has submitted sufficient initial evidence. 
In this case, however, the petitioner has not presented any evidence showing that Ms. 
received any major prizes or awards while under the beneficiary's tutelage. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary coached in early The 
record, however, lacks evidence substantiating counsel's claim. Without documentary evidence to 
support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 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). In addition, the petitioner has not presented any 
evidence showing that Ms. received any major prizes or awards under the beneficiary's 
tutelage. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Vague, solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).3 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 
ofCaron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible 
for making the final determination regarding the beneficiary's eligibility for the·benefit sought. !d. 
The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has 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. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also 
Matter of Soffici, 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)). 
The reference letters in the record primarily contain assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples ofhow 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the sport. Merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Similarly, we need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions o( major significance in the field. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
To establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary has 
performed a leading or critical role for qualifying organizations or establishments. A leading role 
should be evident based not only on the beneficiary's title but his duties associated with the position. 
A critical role should be apparent from the beneficiary's impact on the organizations or 
establishments as a whole. To show the beneficiary's role in an organization or establishment, the 
petitioner may submit an organization chart demonstrating how the beneficiary's role fits within the 
hierarchy of the organization or establishment. 
3 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
petitioner'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 10 
Although the petitioner has not specifically asserted that the beneficiary meets this criterion, the 
record includes some evidence that might be relevant to this criterion. For example, according to 
Mr. the beneficiary "has served as a Lead Regional Training Center Coach at the [the 
petitioning tennis center], and has worked extensively with USTA towards 
developing the next generation of American tennis professionals." The petitioner has submitted an 
employment contract, showing that the petitioner has offered the beneficiary $8,500 a month to serve 
as its Director of Junior High Performance. The record also includes evidence showing that in 
USTA named the petitioner as one of its Certified Regional Training Centers, with 
present at the press conference that garnered some media attention. The petitioner has hosted USTA 
camps for players ages 10-14 in the USTA The 
evidence shows that the beneficiary has performed a role for the petitioner and for UST A's . 
The petitioner, however, did not submit specific evidence relating to the 
beneficiary's duties in these two organizations and/or the impact, if any, that the beneficiary has had 
on these organizations. The record, as it stands does not establish that the petitioner has met this 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that the beneficiary 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
C. Summary 
The evidence shows that the beneficiary has coached a former No. 1 tennis player and the 
Tennis Team. For the reasons discussed above, however, we agree with the director that 
the petitioner has not submitted the requisite initial evidence in this case, evidence of a one-time 
achievement or 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 beneficiary has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has 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 [beneficiary] is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the [beneficiary] 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 proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
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 
on which the petitioner relies on appeal in the aggregate supports a finding that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated, through the submission of extensive evidence, that the beneficiary has attained the 
level of expertise required for the classification sought. 4 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 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.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.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).