dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 - 
invasion of personal privacy U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
I'UBi,~C copy 
kJ% 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 09 108 52237 MAR 2 3 2010 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Peny Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. fj 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3) and that he submitted comparable evidence of his extraordinary ability (in the form of 
reference letters) pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4). Counsel also contends on 
appeal that "no request for evidence was ever made and, as a consequence, appellant believes that 
affording him an opportunity to supplement the record would permit him to establish the 
significance of his achievements in his field of expertise." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 103.2(b)(8)(ii) provides: 
If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the application or petition or does 
not demonstrate eligibility, USCIS in its discretion may deny the application or 
petition for lack of initial evidence or for ineligibility or request that the missing 
initial evidence be submitted within a specified period of time as determined by 
USCIS. 
The director is not required to issue a request for further information in every potentially deniable 
case. If the director determines that the record lacks initial evidence or does not demonstrate 
eligibility, the cited regulation does not require solicitation of further documentation. With regard to 
counsel's concern, it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. 
The petitioner has in fact supplemented the record on appeal, and therefore it would serve no useful 
purpose to remand the case simply to afford the petitioner the opportunity to supplement the record 
with new evidence. 
For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 the following 
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. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). 
Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
procedure for evaluating evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. With respect to the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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. 
The court stated that the AAO's approach rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. fj 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying 
under three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service 
Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
Page 5 
one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Dor v. INS, 891 
F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria at 8 C.F. R. 8 204.5(h)(3) 
This petition, filed on February 24, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a "Fencing Coach." The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a July 15, 2002 letter from the Secretary General of the Egyptian Fencing 
Federation listing the petitioner's competitive results in thirty fencing tournaments from 1979 to 
1985 as member of the Egyptian National Team. Rather than submitting primary evidence of his 
"prizes or awards" from the tournament organizers, the petitioner instead submitted a third-party letter 
summarizing his results. The July 15, 2002 letter does not include any information about the listed 
tournaments or the significance of the fencing awards won by the petitioner. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with 
any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does 
not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary 
evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Where a record does 
not exist, the petitioner must submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant 
authority indicating the reason the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time and 
place are available. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The petitioner has not established that primary 
evidence of his tournament awards does not exist or cannot be obtained. Further, the July 15, 2002 
letter does not equate to secondary evidence or an affidavit. 
The petitioner submitted a 1999 Special Olympics of Egypt "Coaching Excellence Award" in 
"recognition and appreciation of outstanding contribution toward Athletics for the Intellectual & 
Physical Disabilities." The record does not include information from the presenting organization 
indicating the significance of this award or its evaluation criteria. There is no evidence showing that 
this award equates to a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in fencing, 
rather than simply an acknowledgment of the petitioner's voluntary participation in the Egyptian 
Special Olympics. 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate issued to him in 2000 by the Sydney Organizing Committee for 
the Olympic Games and the International Olympic Committee stating: "In recognition of and 
appreciation for your contribution to the success of the Games of the XXVII Olympiad." There is no 
evidence showing that this certificate equates to a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence in fencing, rather than simply an acknowledgment of the petitioner's and the Egyptian 
fencing team's participation in the Summer Olympic Games in Sydney. We note that the July 15, 
2002 letter from the Secretary General of the Egyptian Fencing Federation does not list any results 
pertaining to the petitioner's athletes' achievements in the 2000 Olympic Games. 
The petitioner submitted a "Good Work Award" certificate from the Cairo Fencing Committee "in 
recognition of a job well done . . . in Training Course" from June 28th - July 12th, 2001. The 
petitioner has not established that this certificate was presented for excellence in the field rather than 
for his successful completion of a training course. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that 
completion of this training course is recognized beyond the presenting organization or that it is in 
any way commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classz~cation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
International Federation of Sports Medicine, stating that the petitioner was "a tenured member of the 
International Federation of Sports Medicine and Latin and Mediterranean Group of Sports 
Medicine." Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted 
to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that 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. The English language translation accompanying the 
preceding letter was not certified by the translator as required by the regulation. Further, the record 
does not include evidence (such as membership rules or bylaws) showing the official admission 
requirements for the preceding organizations. There is no evidence showing that they require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. Moreover, the "field for which classification is 
sought" in the present matter is coaching fencing rather than sports medicine. 
The petitioner submitted a December 20, 2005 letter from 0 
Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care, New York Medical College, stating: "As reward of 
his outstanding work in Sports Medicine & Traumatology, [the petitioner] has been elected as a 
member of the Medical Committee of the international fencing federation in Lausanne, Switzerland 
for the period of 2000-2004." On appeal, the petitioner submits an August 25, 2009 letter from 
Ahmed Ismail, President of the Egyptian Fencing Federation, stating: "In 2000 [the petitioner] was 
selected to represent Egypt for the International Fencing Federation Medical committee . . . ." There 
is no evidence showing that either of the preceding individuals are officers or official representatives 
of the International Fencing Federation Medical Committee. Without documentation of the 
petitioner's membership on the Medical Committee originating from the International Fencing 
Federation itself, the petitioner has not established that he was a member and his dates of 
involvement. As stated previously, a petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the 
regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, 
only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may 
the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be 
unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner must 
submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the reason 
the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time and place are available. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The petitioner has not established that primary evidence of his membership on the 
International Fencing Federation Medical Committee does not exist or cannot be obtained. Further, 
the preceding letters do not equate to secondary evidence or affidavits. Regardless, there is no 
evidence showing that this organization requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged 
by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
The August 25, 2009 letter from- further states: "[The petitioner] served two times as 
Egypt Fencing Olympic coach: 1992, Barcelona and 2000, Sydney." We note that an athletic team is 
not an "association" and that the petitioner was a coach rather than a team member. The petitioner's 
role as coach for the Egyptian national team at the Summer Olympics relates to the "leading or 
critical role" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(viii) rather than "membership" in an "association" in 
the field. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one 
another. Because separate criteria exist for membership in associations and performing "in a leading 
or critical role for organizations . . . that have a distinguished reputation," USCIS clearly does not view 
these criteria as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three 
separate criteria. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedfield of specijkation for which classiJication is 
sought. 
On appeal, counsel states: "[The petitioner] 
This work is noted in the letter from a coach 
" The November 20,2007 letter from 
no statement that the petitioner "has frequently been asked to judge fencing competitions" or any other 
information regarding his having participated as a judge at fencing competitions. The petitioner's initial 
submission included a July 23, 2007 letter from of the 
International Fencing Federation and former President of the Egyptian Fencing Federation, asserting 
that the petitioner is an "active international fencing referee." The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of others." Rather 
Page 8 
than submitting evidence of his participation from the fencing tournament organizers (such as an 
event program listing his name as a referee or a referee credential, for example), the petitioner 
instead submitted a one-sentence assertion from attesting to his involvement. As stated 
previously, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. A 
petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(l). 
The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates 
that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary 
evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely 
on affidavits. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner must submit an original written statement 
on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the reason the record does not exist and whether 
similar records for the time and place are available. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The petitioner has 
not established that primary evidence of his participation as an international fencing. referee does not 
exist or cannot be bbtainid. Further. the ;receding letter from does not equate to 
secondary evidence or an affidavit. Regardless, the record lacks official competition rules showing 
that serving as a "referee" in fencing equates to participating as a ''judge" of the work of others. The 
duties of a referee are not to assess the work or expertise of the individuals involved in the competition. 
Rather, the responsibility of the referee is to ensure that rules and procedures are being followed and 
that the bout is safe and fair. The referee does not evaluate or judge the skills or qualifications of the 
participants. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating the specific tournaments refereed by the 
petitioner, the names of the athletes involved, their level of expertise, and the dates of his 
participation. 
The petitioner submitted a "Good Work Award" certificate from the Cairo Fencing Committee "in 
recognition of a job well done . . . in Training Course" from June 28th - July 12th, 2001. Counsel 
discusses this certificate on appeal stating: "[The petitioner] has . . . been asked to teach and 
evaluate other fencing coaches at the national and international level, including a training course on 
behalf of the [Ilnternational Olympic Committee in the summer of 2001, held in Cairo, Egypt." 
None of the information on the preceding certificate corroborates counsel's assertion that the 
petitioner evaluated "other fencing coaches at the national and international level" or that the course 
was taught by the petitioner "on behalf of the International Olympic Committee." Without 
documentary evidence to support these two claims, 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. 53 3, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 
n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The plain language 
of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of' specification." We cannot conclude that teaching a training 
course is tantamount to judging the work of others in the field. While the petitioner's status an 
instructor demonstrates his knowledge and competency in fencing, he has not established that such a 
position meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in thejeld. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation in support of the petition. 
states: "[The petitioner] is well known for his skills in preventing fencing injuries and he 
did some important original contributions in this field." does not specifically identify what 
the petitioner did to prevent fencing injuries, nor is there evidence showing how the petitioner's 
contributions have significantly influenced or impacted his field. 
states: "[The petitioner] has made significant contributions to the advancement of fencing 
training. He has authored a number of publications that included original investigative work into the 
prevention of fencing injuries." Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are 
separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly 
articles and original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as 
being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
We will fully address the petitioner's published work under the next criterion. 
Club, Kentucky, mentions the petitioner's work in "developing new techniques to minimize and 
prevent sport's injuries." The letters from land do not 
specifically identify the petitioner's original training contributions and injury prevention techniques 
or provide specific examples of how they have influenced the field. With regard to the petitioner's 
contributions to the advancement of fencing training, there is nothing in the recommendation letters 
indicating that he has developed original fencing techniques, as opposed to methodologies passed 
down from his own tutelage in the sport. Moreover, even if the injury prevention techniques 
recommended by the petitioner were found to be original, there is no evidence demonstrating that 
these techniques are of major significance in his sport. 
states: "[The petitioner's] original work [ ] in Sports Trauma in Nice University, France . . . 
is considered to be a reference in sport's traumatology and technopathy related to fencing. His 
contribution helped in advancement of this field and found to be of nreat help for manv fencers and 
Federation, states: 
In 1989 at the world championship in Lyon, France [the petitioner] represent his original 
work of fencing injuries that was done in Nice University to obtain his degree in Sport 
traumatology. 
His work in fencing injuries is considered to date to be as a one [sic] of the remarkable 
reference and many federations worldwide are having benefits of this work. 
The record, however, does not include a copy of the petitioner's "original work" from Nice 
University and there are no specific examples of how this work has influenced the field. As stated 
previously, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
states: "[The petitioner] was able to gather and disseminate information on fencing injury 
data, and scientific training related to fencing, and to conduct research, his original epidemiological 
study of fencing injury on 1989 still considered one of he [sic] most important contribution on that 
field worldwide." With regard to the petitioner's research contributions, the reference letters do not 
specify exactly what his original contributions have been, nor is there a detailed explanation 
indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the respect and admiration of those 
individuals offering letters of support, the documentation submitted by him does not establish that he 
has demonstrably impacted his field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the 
petitioner's influence on other fencing coaches nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the 
field has somehow changed as a result of his work so as to demonstrate the petitioner's significant 
contribution to his field. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
criterion. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how 
they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that 
one would expect of a fencing coach who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without 
extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly 
acclaimed throughout his sport, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jield, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a resume with an attachment listing his "publications." The self-serving 
claims in the petitioner's resume and attachment are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof for 
this regulatory criterion. In his letter of support, asserted that the petitioner "produced a 
good deal of publications in highly specialized journals." Further, letter claimed that the 
petitioner "authored a number of publications that included original investigative work into the 
prevention of fencing injuries." Finally, letter asserted that the petitioner has 
authored "several original publications." The record, however, does not include copies of any of 
these publications. As stated previously, going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only where 
the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the 
petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be 
unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner must 
submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the reason 
the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time and place are available. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The petitioner has not established that copies of his published articles do not exist 
or cannot be obtained. Further, his resume and the recommendation letters do not equate to 
secondary evidence or affidavits. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has 
authored scholarly articles in the field or that they were published "in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media." Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
states in his letter that the petitioner "served two times as Egypt Fencing Olympic coach: 
1992, Barcelona and 2000, Sydney." The record includes adequate supporting evidence 
corroborating statement and demonstrating the distinguished reputation of the Egyptian 
fencing team. Accordingly, the petitioner's evidence meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Comparable Evidence Under 8 C.I;.R. 8 204.5(h)(4) 
On appeal, counsel states that the letters of support submitted by the petitioner should be considered 
as comparable evidence of his extraordinary ability in fencing. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the consideration 
of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no evidence that eligibility for visa preference in the 
petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). In fact, counsel's appellate submission and the petitioner's initial submission 
specifically address several of the preceding regulatory criteria. Where an alien is simply unable to 
meet three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests 
reevaluation of as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. We note that the petitioner's 
letters of support have already been addressed under the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
While reference letters can provide useful information about an alien's qualifications or help in 
assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters are not comparable to extensive evidence of the alien's 
achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(2)(i). The classification sought 
requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress 
that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by 
requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required for lesser 
classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements and 
recognition is of far greater probative value than opinion statements from individuals selected by the 
petitioner. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
Thus, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 2010 WL 7253 17 at "3. 
As discussed previously, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
"fencing coach." The petitioner's initial submission included a July 15, 2002 letter fiom the 
Secretary General of the Egyptian Fencing Federation listing the petitioner's competitive results in 
thirty fencing tournaments from 1979 to 1985 as a member of the Egyptian National Team. The 
preceding athletic achievements occurred more than two decades prior to the filing date of the 
petition. Thus, the petitioner's results as a fencing competitor are not evidence of his sustained 
national or international acclaim as a fencing coach. Subsequent to the conclusion of his competitive 
career in the 1980s, there is no evidence indicating that the petitioner remained active as a 
competitor in national or international fencing tournaments. Further, Part 6 of the Form 1-140 
petition, "Basic information about the proposed employment," and various reference letters 
submitted by the petitioner do not indicate that he intends to compete in the United States. The 
statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained and that 
he seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 
and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. 5 5 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While 
a competitive fencer and a fencing coach may share knowledge of the sport, 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. Ill. 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 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. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim through 
achievements as a fencing competitor since the conclusion of his athletic career in the 1980s. 
Further, the petitioner states that he intends to work as a fencing coach in New Jersey. While the 
petitioner's competitive accomplishments as a fencer are not completely irrelevant and have been 
given some consideration, ultimately he must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim 
as a coach. 
In this context, with regard to the evidence submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3)(i), the petitioner's tournament results as a fencing competitor fiom 1979 to 1985 cannot 
be considered evidence of his national or international acclaim as a coach. There is no evidence 
indicating that the petitioner has received any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards in competition since the 1980s or that he intends to continue competing as a fencer in the 
United States. As discussed previously, the statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or 
international acclaim to be sustained and that he seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the 
United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $5 11 53(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), 
and 8 C.F.R. $$ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). Accordingly, the petitioner's tournament results demonstrating 
his past success as a competitor cannot serve to demonstrate his sustained national or international 
acclaim as a coach. 
While nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by individual fencing 
competitors or teams coached primarily by the petitioner do not meet the plain language of the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(i), such prizes and awards may be relevant to the final 
merits determination of whether a coach has sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of his field. In that regard, the petitioner submitted a July 15, 2002 letter from the Secretary 
General of the Egyptian Fencing Federation stating: "[The petitioner] has been the coach of the 
Egyptian National Team for both Men and Women from January 1, 1999 till July 2002." The letter 
lists results achieved by Egyptian fencers in various international tournaments during the preceding 
period. The petitioner also submitted a May 22, 1988 letter from the Secretary General of the 
Egyptian Fencing Club stating that the petitioner "trained the club team which won the Egyptian 
National Tournament 1986." The petitioner's initial submission also included a May 5, 2008 letter 
from the Chairwoman of the Fencing Board of the Gezira Sporting Club stating: "[The petitioner] 
was the head coach and a trainer in the Gezira Sporting Club since 1999. . . . [The petitioner] built 
the fencing sport in our club and within t[h]ree year[s] we won the national competition and took the 
2nd place in the Arab competition . . . ." Rather than submitting primary evidence of his fencers' 
"prizes or awards" fiom the fencing tournament organizers, the petitioner instead submitted three third- 
party letters briefly mentioning his athletes' competitive results. The July 15,2002; May 22, 1988; and 
May 5, 2008 letters do not include any information about the listed tournaments or the significance 
of the fencing awards won by those whom the petitioner coached. As stated previously, going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Even if the petitioner were to submit evidence establishing that he or athletes coached primarily by 
him received nationally or internationally recognized awards during the period from 1979 to 2002, 
there is no evidence of any awards received by him or athletes under his direct tutelage during the 
six years immediately preceding the filing date of this petition. According to the petitioner's Form 
G-325A, Biographic Information, multiple approved HI -B non-immigrant visa petitions filed in his 
behalf, and recent Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statements fiom his employer (SI Paradigm Diagnostic 
Informatics), the petitioner has worked as an "Administrator" in the healthcare field since coming to 
the United States in November 2002. Without evidence of qualifying prizes or awards received in 
the six-year period before the petition's filing date, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his national 
or international acclaim in the sport of fencing has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) is not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim as of the 
date of filing this petition and there is no further evidence under this criterion or the other criteria 
documenting the petitioner's more recent national or international acclaim as a coach or an athlete. 
With regard to the evidence submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), none 
of the submitted documentation indicates that the petitioner has held membership in an association 
requiring outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international 
experts subsequent to 2004. Without evidence showing that the petitioner has held qualifying 
association memberships in the four years immediately preceding the petition's filing date, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that his national or international acclaim in the sport of fencing has been 
sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The memberships claimed by the petitioner under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) are not 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim as of the date of filing of this petition and 
there is no further evidence under this criterion or the other criteria documenting the petitioner's 
more recent national or international acclaim as a fencing coach. 
With regard to the evidence submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), none 
of the submitted documentation indicates that the petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of 
others in his field or an allied one in the years immediately preceding the petition's filing date. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his national or international acclaim in the sport 
of fencing has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), 
and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) is not 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim as of the date of filing this petition and 
there is no further evidence under this criterion or the other criteria documenting the petitioner's 
more recent national or international acclaim as a coach. 
With regard to the evidence submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(v), the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence of any original contributions of major significance in his sport in 
the decade preceding the petition's filing date. Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his 
national or international acclaim in the sport of fencing has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted 
for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim as of 
the date of filing this petition and there is no further evidence under this criterion or the other criteria 
documenting the petitioner's more recent national or international acclaim as a coach. 
With regard to the evidence submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that he has authored scholarly articles in major 
publications in the decade preceding the petition's filing date. Thus, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
that his national or international acclaim in the sport of fencing has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). The 
documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi) is not consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim as of the date of filing this petition and there is no further evidence under this 
criterion or the other criteria documenting the petitioner's more recent national or international 
acclaim in fencing. 
Although the petitioner's evidence meets the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(viii), there 
is no evidence showing that the petitioner has coached for the Egyptian fencing team or any other 
team having a distinguished reputation since 2002. Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
that his national or international acclaim in the sport of fencing has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The 
documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii) is not consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim as of the date of filing this petition and there is no further evidence under this 
criterion or the other criteria documenting the petitioner's more recent national or international 
acclaim in fencing. 
In this case, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of nationally or internationally acclaimed 
achievements and recognition in his field subsequent to his entry into the United States in 2002. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his national or international acclaim in the sport of 
fencing has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
D. The Regulation at 8 C. F.R. 8 204.5(h) (5) 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 'c.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence 
that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence 
may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as 
contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue 
his or her work in the United States." In support of his petition, the petitioner submitted a statement 
of intent stating: 
For the past six years I have been lawfully employed in Hl B 1 status as a medical 
Administrator, a position for which I qualified based on my medical education and 
experience. During this period I have maintained my connection with the sport of fencing 
through donating a part of my non-working hours to advising fencing academies on 
establishing schools and/or developing programs for coaches and students. 
[Emphasis added.] 
The record, however, does not include supporting evidence documenting the petitioner's specific 
activities as a fencing academy advisor or developer of programs for coaches and students 
subsequent to his arrival in the United States in 2002. Moreover, the petitioner's full-time work as a 
medical administrator since 2002 for companies such as Uptown Healthcare Management, Accord 
Medical Associates, and SI Paradigm Diagnostic Informatics does not constitute "clear evidence" that 
he is coming to the United States to continue work as a fencing coach. 
The petitioner further states: 
It is my intention to advance the sport of fencing in the United States by working full time 
as a Fencing Coach. I intend to work in the following area of expertise: (1) develop 
fencing clubs in New Jersey; (2) coach individual fencers throughout the United States to 
attain Olympic level standards; (3) lecture and train new fencing coaches in collaboration 
with the United States Coach Fencing Association (USCFA); (4) lecture coaches, 
physicians and fencers on methods to prevent fencing injuries; (5) develop fencing program 
and drills for individuals with variety of intellectual and physical disabilities. 
I have an offer of employment from of ~ort Lee, NJ. This initial 
offer is for a salary of $80,000. Based on my knowledge of the market I expect to earn an 
annual income of no less than $100,000. 
The record, however, lacks "clear evidence" showing that the petitioner has positioned himself to 
achieve his stated goals in this country. For example, since his arrival in the United States in 2002, 
there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has been primarily responsible for the development 
of fencing clubs in this country; that he has coached individual fencers throughout the United States 
to attain Olympic-level standards; that he has lectured and trained new fencing coaches in 
collaboration with the USCFA; that he has lectured coaches, physicians and fencers on methods to 
prevent fencing injuries; or that he has developed fencing programs and drills for individuals with a 
variety of intellectual and physical disabilities. Moreover, the record does not include evidence to 
support the petitioner's claim that he received an offer of employment from - - for a salary of $80,000. In this case, the petitioner's full-time work as a 
medical administrator and lack of recent achievements as a fencing coach during his last six years in 
the United States contradicts his statement of intent. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve 
any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Accordingly, the petitioner's employment record in the United States since 2002 casts doubt on the 
Page 17 
validity of his claims in his statement of intent. Thus, the evidence submitted is not clear that the 
petitioner will continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself 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 is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Moreover, the evidence is not clear that the petitioner will continue to work in his area of 
expertise in the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
U.S. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.