dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

DATE: JUN 1 8 2012 
INRE: 
"" '7" ,, __ i __ 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusclts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20S29-20()O 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. ~ 1153(b)( 1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this malter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that ollice. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to rcopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
#1S~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section Z03(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. ~ Z04.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § Z04.S(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § Z04.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence and asserts that the petitioner meets at least 
three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § Z04.5(h)(3). Further, counsel asserts 
that the director made a material error that the petitioner relied upon when the director stated in the 
notice of intent to deny that the critical role criterion had been met, but stated that no evidence had been 
submitted under that criterion in the denial. Counsel also asserts that the director failed to separate the 
two-part approach stating that "this constitutes harmful error." The remedy for counsel's first concern 
is for the AAO to consider all the evidence on appeal. Regarding counsel's second concern, upon 
review of the entire record, the AAO finds the errors to be harmless, as the petitioner does not meet 
three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO upholds 
the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. AAO's de novo 
authority is well recognized by the federal courts. See Soltane v. DO], 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
Z004 ). 
I. LAW 
Section Z03(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 --
Page] 
(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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCrS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101" Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 5fl Fed. Reg. fl0897, 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. Id.; 
tl C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20lO). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation 
of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that '·the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
1~liled to submit sut1icient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
I Specifically. the court Slated that the AAO hact unilaterally imposed novel suhstantive or evidentiary 
requiremenls heyond those sel forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
* 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
II. INTENT TO CONTINUE TO WORK IN THE AREA OF EXPERTISE 
The AAO notes here that in Part 5 of Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the 
petitioner listed his occupation as a "Fencing Instructor." In addition, in Part 6, the petitioner listed 
his proposed job title as "Fencing Coach." Further, the petitioner submitted an employment 
agreement between the petitioner and Woodlands Fencing Foundation, LLC which references the 
petitioner as "Coach" and a letter of support trom Woodlands Fencing Foundation, LLC which refers 
to the petitioner as both a "Fencing Instructor" and a "Coach." Thus, the record reflects that the 
petitioner is seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as an instructor or coach rather 
than as a competitor. Even though the petitioner submitted documentation regarding his 
involvement in earlier tournaments as a competitor, the record ret1ects the petitioner's intent to work 
in the United States as a coach. 
The statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sllstained and 
that he seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See sections 
203(b)(I)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. §§ 1153(b)(I)(A)(i) and (ii), and tl C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a fencing coach and a fencer share knowledge of the sport, the two 
rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, instruction and competition are not the same area of 
expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in federal court. In Lee v. 1.N.5., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 
(N.D. Ill. 2(02), 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 example, Lee's extraordinary 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. 
1<1. at 91 tl. The court noted a consistent history in this area. While the record demonstrates that the 
petitioner intends to works as a coach, there is no evidence indicating that be intends to compete as 
an athlete in the United States. While the AAO acknowledges the possibility of an alien's 
extraordinary claim in more than one field, such as fencing coach and fencer, the petitioner, however, 
must demonstrate "by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in 
the area of expertise." See tl C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
Based on the petitioner's answers to the questions on Form 1-140 and the submitted documentation. 
the record retlects that the petitioner intends to continue to work in the area of coaching rather than 
Page 5 
competitIon. It should also be noted that, according to the record, the petitioner has been coaching 
since 1988 and, thus, has had plenty of opportunity to earn acclaim as a coach. Ultimately, the 
petitioner must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) through his achievements as a fencing 
coach. As such, the evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding his achievements as a competitor 
will not be considered here. 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Prior 0-1 
While USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the 
petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, classification. It must be noted that many [-140 immigrant 
petitions arc denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g, Q Data 
CO/l.lultinK, Ine. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of .lust ice, 48 F. 
Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
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., Matter of Church Scientology 
International. 19 [&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that USC[S or any 
agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 
1084, !O90 (nth Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
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 has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a 
service center. r!Jllisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), aff'd, 248 F.3d 
1139 (5th Cir. 20()!), c<'rt. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
B. Comparable Evidence Under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
On appeal. counsel asserts that letters from renowned fencing coaches "demonstrate comparable 
evidence of [the petitionerrs satisfying the criterion that he has participated as a 'judge of the work of 
others' (other coaches) as well as evidence of his significant, original contributions to the sport of 
fencing." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" 
only if the ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneticiary's occupation." Thus, it is 
the petitioner's burden to demonstrate why the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are not 
readily applicable to the alien's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the 
specific objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 
The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no 
indication that a sufficient number of the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
Page () 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are not readily applicable to the occupation of fencing coach. In fact, the petItIOner 
submitted evidence with the original Form 1-140 that specifically addresses five of the ten categories of 
evidence set forth in the regulation at S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and on appeal, counsel asserts that the 
petitioner "qualities under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (viii) as well as tl C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 4 )." Where an alien is simply unable to satisfy the plain language requirements of at least 
three categories of evidence at S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the regulation at tl C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not 
allow for the submission of comparable evidence. Nevertheless, the AAO will not ignore the letters 
and will consider them later in this decision. 
Counsci further asserts that the letters "must be given substantial weight" because "they are 
corroborated by other evidence." Much of the other evidence of record, however, is printed from 
Wikipedia. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability 
of the content from this open, user-edited internet site. 2 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 
54() F.3d ')()') (tl1h Cif. 200S). 
C. Evidentiary Criteria 3 
Documentation ol the alien '.I' receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
alVaI'd, fi)l- excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The plain language of the regulation at S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field o{ f'luleavor I emphasis added]." USCIS may not utilize novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1221, citillR Love 
Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cif. 200S). Therefore, any prizes or awards that 
may have been garnered by the petitioner as a competitor cannot be considered here, as they are not 
2 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collahorative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
devclop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with 
an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily 
heen reviewed hy people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or 
rcliahlc information .... Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The 
content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered hy someone 
whose opinion docs not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See itttp:,'ClLwilJl'cdiac<l['wwitil\yikipcclia:Gencral disclaimer, accessed on June 15, 2012, a copy of which 
is incllfporated into the record of proceeding. 
; The petitioner docs not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in lhis decision. 
Page 7 
within the petitioner's field of endeavor as a fencing coach, See Lee v. I.N.s., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914 
(upholding a finding that competitive athletics and coaching are not within the same area of expertise). 
Regarding the awards of the petitioner's students, they do not meet the plain language of this 
criterion, which requires the petitioner's receipt of qualifYing awards or prizes. They also cannot be 
considered comparable evidence. It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the standards at 
K C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are not readily applicable to the petitioner's occupation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). The AAO notes that the submitted documentation shows that qual awards 
exist for fencing coaches. For instance, the petitioner submitted a reference letter from 
stating that hc "was inducted into the United States Fencing Hall of Fame" in 2010 based on his 
achievements as a coach. Similarly, , states that he "received the USSR Medal of 
Merit for [his] performance as a Coach at the Olympic Games in Seoul." While the AAO need not 
and does not decide whether these honors might be qualifying nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards, they suggest, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that 
this criterion may well be readily applicable to the petitioner's occupation. The record does not 
contain evidence that the petitioner has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in coaching. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
Oocumentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field fiJr which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged hy recognized national 
or illlenUlliOlllll experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The plain language of this regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of the "alien's 
memhership in associations in the field for which classification is sought." As previously stated, the 
field for which the petitioner seeks classification in this matter is coaching. As such, the petitioner's 
membership on the Soviet National Fencing Team from 1982-1991 cannot be considered under this 
regulatory criterion for purposes of establishing his extraordinary ability as a coach. 
Furthermore, as acknowledged by counsel on appeal, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
* 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires the petitioner's membership in more than one association. Significantly, not 
all of the criteria at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 
~ C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high 
salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so 
as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of 
"Ietter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In 
a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the 
singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 
(D.C. Cir. March 26, 2(08); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 
30.2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" 
Page S 
foreign equivalent degree at S C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of 
academic credentials). Although counsel asserts that because the petitioner "was a member of the 
most sclect association possible" that "memberships in other associations, even if they existed, would 
hc supertluous." there is nothing in the regulations to allow for the waiver of the plural requirement. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
Puhlished material ahout the alien in professional or major trade puhlications or other major 
media. relating to the alien's work in the fieldror which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
On appeal, counsel ,L'iScrts that the director erred in rejecting articles that are not primarily about the 
petitioner. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]ublished 
material ahout the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the 
alien's work in the lield for which classification is sought." Articles about competitions are not "about" 
each athlete referenced in the articles. See generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CY -S20-ECR-RJJ at 
7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 200S) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
Regardless, for the reasons discussed above, the AAO will only consider the submitted articles which 
refer to the petitioner's achievements as a coach. 
Further. in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be printed in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have 
significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.4 
In addition. the plain language of the regulation requires that "[ s ]uch evidence shall include the title. 
date. and author of the material, and any necessary translation." 
The only article submitted which definitively relates to the petitioner as a coach, and not a competitor, 
is the July 3, 200'! article in The Courier of Montgomery County. However, the article is primarily 
ahollt the petitioner's student and not the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the paper 
qualifies as major media. 
The ;\;\0 notes that there was another article entitled "The Last of the Mohicans" which may have 
relied on the petitioner'S coaching experience. However, a complete translation was not provided, 
contrary to counsel's claim, and therefore cannot be considered here. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
, Even with nationally-circulateu newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example. an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
COllIlty, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside afthat county. 
Page 4 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
F vidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge oflhe work of 
otizers ill the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
It should be noted that counsel had not previously asserted a claim under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that letters from renowned fencing coaches "demonstrate comparable 
evidence of the [the petitioner]'s satisfying the criterion that he has participated as a 'judge of the 
work of others' (other coaches)" and that the petitioner "fulfills the requirement of judge of the work 
of others (athletes coached)" based upon the success of his students. With regard to the letters 
serving as comparable evidence, as previously stated above, where an alien is simply unable to 
satisfy the plain language requirements of at least three categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of 
comparahle evidence. Furthermore, it should be noted that the authors of the letters do not claim that 
the petitioner meets this criterion. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Maller of Ohaighella, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 
1983); Maller of Ramirez-Sanchez, 171&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
The term "judge" implies a formal designation in ajudging capacity, either on a panel or individually 
as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Serving as a coach as part of one's job does not equate to 
participation as a judge of the work of others. Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation ... as ajudge." The absence 
of evidcnce of the petitioner's participation (such as judging slips, event programs identifying the 
petitioner as a judge, or a judge's credential from events) is a significant omission from the record. 
The henefit sought in the present matter is not the type for which documentation is typically unavailable 
and the statute specifically requires "extensive documentation" to establish eligibility. See section 
203(h)( I )(A)(i) of the Act. 
Going on rccord without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Malia of Treasure Craft ofCaliforl1ia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence o/'the alien's original scientific. scholarly, artistic, athletic, or husiness­
related contrihulions of major significance in the field. 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
While the AAO agrees with the director that "[lletters of support alone are not sufficient to meet this 
criterion:' the AAO tinds that the director erred in his conclusion. In addition to the letters from 
experts and colleagues, the record contains evidence of the awards, competitive results, and rankings 
Page I () 
of fencers coached the petitioner coached. The AAO finds that the preceding documentation IS 
sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion as a coach. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
estahlishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In the original filing, counsel asserts that the petitioner "performed a critical role for Estonia as Head 
Coach of the National Women's team and the USSR as an individual and team champion as well as a 
coach tor other Estonian fencers" and that the petitioner "performed a critical role for Alliance Fencing 
Academy" and "is currently performing a critical role at "Woodlands Fencing Academy," Again, the 
AAO will only address the petitioner's roles as a coach. See Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 918. 
While the record contains sufficient evidence that the petitioner performs in a leading or critical role for 
his current employer. there is no documentary evidence that the petitioner's employer has a 
distinguished reputation. 
Furthermore, as noted by counsel on appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) requires that 
evidence of experience "shall" consist ofletters from employers. The petitioner failed to provide letters 
from any former employers. As a result, the AAO cannot determine whether the petitioner performed 
in a leading or critical role for any previous employer with a distinguished reputation, including the 
Estonian National Women's team. 
As previously discussed, the use of the plural is cOILsistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
* 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for 
distinguished "organizations or establishments" in the plural. Therefore, even if the petitioner were to 
submit documentary evidence showing that his current employer is distinguished, which the petitioner 
has not. the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence of a 
leading or critical role for more than one distinguished organization or establishment. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the petitioner meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
D. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
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 
"\evel of cxpel1ise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of thel ir J 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 expel1ise." 8 C.F.R. 
** 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. s Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. {d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 USc. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
, The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See SO/lane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145. In 
any future proceeding, the AAO maintains 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)(I)(ii). See also section 103(a)(I) of the Act: 
sectinn 2()4(h) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 
K C.F.R. * 103.1 (1)(3 )(iii) (2003); Matter of Allrelio, 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).