dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homelanld Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Imrnigratio~i 
Services 
FILE: EAC 03 05 1 50987 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: Jl& 11 2 200; 
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. 
, Administrative Appeals Office 
0 
EAC 03 05 1 50987 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermortt Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(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 requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise i~ndicating 
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. fj 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the ".sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics as a gymnastics 
coach and claims to have been a member of the former Soviet Union Olympic gymnastics team. The record 
indicates that the petitioner is employed as coach at Gymnastique Incorporated, a gymnastics cluh in Long 
Island, New York.. The director found the record did not establish that the petitioner had earned the sustained 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. On appeal, counsel submits a brief and 
additional supporting documents. Counsel's claims and the additional evidence do not overcome the 
deficiencies of the petition and the appeal will be dismissed. 
We first note that an alien who seeks to enter the United States as a coach under the extraordinary ability 
classification cannot rely solely on acclaim as an athlete. However, given the nexus between competing and 
coaching, in a case where an alien has clearly achieved national or international acclaim as an athlete and has 
EAC 03 051 50987 
Page 3 
sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at a national level, an adjudicator may consider the totality of the 
evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability. Accordingly, we 
review the evidence in this case under this standard. We address counsel's claims and the evidence submitted in 
the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(I) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards 
for excellence in the$eld of endeavor. 
On page six of his appellate brief, counsel claims "the petitioner was a member of the Soviet Olympic Team and 
as such more that [sic] adequately satisfies the first criteria [sic]." Although several of the petitioner3s support 
letters also refer to him as a "former Olympian," the record contains' no corroborative evidence of the 
petitioner's participation in any Olympic games. Simply going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The record contains a certificate issued by the "Board of the Physical Education and Sport affiliated with the 
USSR's Board of Ministers," which attests that the petitioner was "awarded a qualification of a Foreman of 
Sport of the USSR in the field of Athletic Gymnastics from the 22nd Day of December, 1981 ." The record 
contains no evidence to explain the significance of this certificate or the criteria for designation as a '"Foreman 
of Sport." Even if the petitioner's certificate was a nationally recognized prize or award for gymnastic 
excellence in the former Soviet Union, it alone would not meet this criterion. The certificate was issued over 20 
years before this petition was filed, and would only demonstrate the petitioner's past acclaim as an athlete. 
The record is also devoid of any evidence that the petitioner has sustained his alleged past acclaim as an athlete 
through his subsequent work as a gymnastics coach. Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
won by a coach's students can be considered comparable evidence for this criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(4). Yet in this case, the petitioner submitted no evidence that any of his students have won national 
or international competitions. In fact, the record indicates that the petitioner's students have only cornpeted on 
the local, state or regional level. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter from his employe- 
president of Gymnastique Incorporated who explains that the petitioner has trained two gymnasts 
who "were level 10 athletes in the 2003 and 2004 competitive season within the USA Gymnastics nationally and 
internationally recognized program. They are both now training for the Elite team and hope to qualify to 
National and International com~etition this vear." Three su~~ort letters submitted with the ~etition also state 
that the petitioner formerly Center where he coached two 
state champions and his students East Regionals. Hence, the record 
indicates that the petitioner has not coached students competing internationally or on the national level in the a 
United States. 
Several of the petitioner's support letters also note that the petitioner earned a Master's degree from the 
Dnepropetrovsk State Institute of Physical Education where he worked as a coach and teacher before coming to 
the United States. The record contains a Diploma awarded to the petitioner in 1988 from the Dnepropetrovsk 
State Institute of Physical Education which states, "By the decision of the State Examination Board from the 3oth 
Day of June, 1988 [the petitioner] was qualified as a Teacher of Physical Education." The diploma is affixed 
with the emblem of the Soviet Union. Despite this professional qualification, the record is devoid of any 
evidence of the petitioner's actual coaching in the former Soviet Union or that any of his former students won 
EAC 03 05 1 50987 
Page 4 
any national or international competitions, prizes or awards. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in theJieId for which classzjicution is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessay translation. 
The petitioner submitted three documents as evidence of his eligibility under this criterion. The first document 
is an excerpt from an article entitled "Offer Catches Gymnast Off-Balance" dated August 16, 1996 by an 
unnamed author and from an unidentified source. The excerpt features a photograph of 
of his students. The article is about the petitioner's student and her.plans to train with coac 
as one of his student's two current coaches: "Her coaches, [the 
guide her through her routines. [The petitioner], a Russian, coaches 
vault." The submitted excerpt does not further mention or discuss the petitioner or his coaching. The :submitted 
copy of this article does not comply with this criterion. The author and source of the article are not identified 
and the record is devoid of any evidence that the article was published in a nationally circulated newspaper or 
other major media. 
The second document is an article entitled "Local Gymnast Raises the Bar" and is dated March 30, 2000 from 
an unidentified source. The article discusses the performance of one of the petitioner's students at the South 
Carolina state competition. The article mentions the petitioner as the student's "other coach." There is no 
evidence that this article was published in a professional, major trade publication or other major media. 
The last article is entitled "Local Gymnasts Train with Olympic Gold Medal Winner" and is dat d November 
20, 1997 from an unidentified source. The article discusses the visit of 14 students from- 
Gymnastic Center to the gymnasium o who won five gold medals as a Russian gymnast at 
the 1988 Olympics. The petitioner is mentioned only in the article's last sentence: "Local coaches Oleg 
Redikartsev and Svetlana ~ntra~ovia accompanied the girls." Again, there is no evidence that this article was 
published in a professional, major trade publication or other major media. 
On page seven of his appellate brief, counsel claims, "Newspapers constitute an [sicl'other major media' and 
satisfy this third criteria [sic]. The newspaper articles demonstrate that [the petitioner's] students have achieved 
national recognition due in large part to his training and guidance." As discussed above, the two articles and 
one excerpt from an article only identify the petitioner in passing as the coach of the featured students. The 
documents do not discuss the petitioner or his coaching. Moreover, none of the articles state that any of the 
petitioner's students have participated in national competitions and none of the articles' sources are documented 
as nationally circulated newspapers. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(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 alliedjeld of speczjication for which classrfication is sought. 
As a gymnastics coach, the petitioner has undoubtedly judged the work of his students and their competitors at 
various tournaments. However, duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine to the 
occupation itself. In this case, the petitioner has submitted no evidence that he has served as a judge in a manner 
significantly outside the duties of his employment in a manner reflective of sustained national or international 
EAC 03 05 1 50987 
Page 5 
acclaim. In her letter submitted on appeal, Dawn Wilensky (the petitioner's employer) requests that we "[pllease 
also note that under Title 8 Section (IV) [the petitioner] is an internationally recognized judge and coach." The 
record is devoid of any documentation to corroborate this claim. Again, simply going on recortl without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. SofJici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientzjc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contri/4utions of 
major signiJicance in the field. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner "has imparted unique techniques, maneuvers and a training 
r success, regiment which maximizes his students' potential and gives them the ability to succeed at levels oi 
previously not attainable. The petitioner's unique perspective and methodology are well illustrated by the 
recommendations of his peers and from current and former students." The petitioner initially submitted four 
support letters from his employer; other gymnastic professionals, several of whom are former Olympians; and 
one handwritten thank you note from his student, "Jaime." On appeal, the petitioner submits an additional three 
letters from other gymnastic coaches, a second letter from his employer, and letters from six of his students' 
parents. While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, 
they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not 
demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
In her first letter, the petitioner's employer, explained that because of the pr:titioner7s 
"international gymnastics experience, he brings skill knowledge as well as psychological 
to prepare athletes for local, sectional, national and eventually international competitions.' 
further states that the petitioner's "successful coaching ability is renowned. He, himself, 
gymnast on the team for the Ukraine. He coached the Russian Olympic athletic gymnastics team from the 
beginner to the Olympic level athlete." As discussed above under the first criterion, the record contains no 
evidence of the petitioner's participation in the Olympics or any other international competit~~ons as a 
gymnast. The record is also devoid of any evidence that he coached the Russian Olympic gymnastics team. 
The other support letters praise the petitioner's abilities in general terms, but do not identify any specific, major 
contributions that he has made to his field as either a gymnast or a gymnastics coach. of 
Planet Gymnastics, simply states that the petitioner's "ability to communicate with kids, his technical 
knowledge, his devotion, and his professionalism are among some of his qualities." Sorin and Teodora Cepoi, 
Owners of Dynamic Gymnastics, say the petitioner "has gained the respect of the entire gymnastics community 
through his coaching and teaching professionalism. His coaching repertoire combine [sic] a great support, 
motivation and discipline[,] a combination that produces not only great athletes, but fine young citizens; as well." 
orld of Gymnastics Incorporated, states, "In the United States [the petitioner] 
ung athletes in the sport of artistic gymnastics. He was a valuable asset to 
the Beach Team Tumblers (Head Coach 1995-2001), where he has brought the necessary skills and commitment 
needed for upper level training. [The petitioner] gives his gymnasts necessary confidence, proper technique, 
EAC 03 05 1 50987 
Page 6 
physical and psychological skills." The record contains no documentation of the petitioner's position or 
accomplishments as a coach for the "Beach Team Tumblers." 
On atmeal. the ~etitioner submits additional letters from --owner of Galaxy Gymnastics 
Galina Petrounik of Gymnastique. These letters repeat verbatim much of the 
text from iiiZGK74 aubmiked with the petition. This repetition suggests 
that the letters' language is not the authors' own and detracts from the letters' probative value. 
On appeal, the petitioner also submits letters from the parents of six of his students. The parents all praise the 
petitioner and credit him with the improvement of their daughters' skills and advancement. None of the letters 
indicate that any of the students have competed beyond regional championships. While these letters attest to the 
petitioner's valued work as a coach for these students, none of the parents describe any specific coaching skills 
or techniques of the petitioner that constitute major contributions to his sport. 
The only other evidence of the petitioner's gymnastic achievements are the diploma and "Foreman of Sport" 
certificate previously discussed under the first criterion, a "National Safety Certification" presented to the 
petitioner by USA Gymnastics, and a certificate from the Woodward Visiting Coaches Educational Program for 
the Summer of 2000. The petitioner's diploma simply attests to his education and certification as a physical 
education teacher in the former Soviet Union. As explained under the first criterion, the record does not explain 
the significance of the petitioner's "Foreman of Sport" certificate and the petitioner submitted no documentation 
that his designation as a "Foreman of Sport" evidenced a major contribution to his field. Similarly, counsel 
claims on page two of his appellate brief that the petitioner's certificates shows that "[hle is certified in the 
United States and was certified in the USSR to teach and train gymnasts at the highest levels." The record does 
not support that claim. The petitioner's diploma only states that he was qualified to teach physical education. It 
does not state that he was certified to teach gymnasts at the highest levels. The USA Gymnastics certificate only 
demonstrates that the petitioner has completed "all the requirements pertaining to the USA Gymnastics National 
Safety Certification Program." It does not certify the petitioner as a gymnastics coach and the record contains 
no evidence that this safety certification is only granted to coaches already certified by USA Gjrmnastics. 
Finally, the petitioner's Woodward certificate indicates that he attended and completed a summer eclucational 
program for visiting coaches. The record contains no evidence to explain the significance of this certificate or 
document that this program certifies gymnastics coaches at the highest levels in the United States. 
Despite the support letters' praiseworthy descriptions of the petitioner's gymnastic skills and accomplishments, 
the record contains no corroborative evidence that he has made major contributions to his sport as either an 
athlete or a coach. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On page eight of his appellate brief, counsel contends that the director "failed to acknowledge that the 
petitioner's abilities 'are showcased or are on exhibit' at each local, regional and national gymnastics 
competition that his students participate in." Even if we considered evidence of the petitioners' students' 
participation in gymnastic competitions as comparable evidence of his eligibility under this category pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(4), he would not meet this criterion. The petitioner's students in the United States have only 
competed in local, state and regional competitions, as evidenced by the petitioner's support letters firom other 
gymnastic professionals and the parents of some of his students as well as the two newspaper articles and the 
excerpt from a third article. The record is devoid of any evidence that he has coached gymnasts at thse national 
EAC 03 05 1 50987 
Page 7 
or international level. Despite the claims of some of the support letters, the record also contains no 
corroborative evidence that the petitioner was a gymnastics coach in the former Soviet Union or Russia prior to 
his arrival in the United States. The record thus does not establish that any of the petitioner's students have 
participated in national or international competitions that would reflect the petitioner's sustained acclaim as a 
coach. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
1 
In her second letter submitted on appeal, the petitioner's employe 
b. 
states that the petitioner 
"has established himself as an important asset to our business, without him our uslAess would incur a huge 
financial blow and possible bankruptcy." She further claims that the petitioner has "taken commalid of our 
70 student gymnastics girls' competitive team, bringing them to local, state, regional and National level - - 
championships." Yet the record contains no evidence-that the petitioner has coached students at any national 
championships.also explains that the petitioner teaches "over 20 hours a week of private 
lessons for high level athletes and is in demand for many more hours. As stated in the enclosed letters, these - 
parents would seek training at other 'Olympic Gyms' possibly out of state in order to continue their 
children's 'Olympic dreams and college scholarship possibilities."' Letters written by the parents of three of 
the petitioner's students affirm that their daughter's goals include participating in the Olympics and obtaining 
college scholarships. 
While the record may indicate that the petitioner plays a critical role for 
submitted no evidence that Gymnastique has a distinguished reputation. In 
stated that her club's 'treputation for quality, professional gymnastics and our 
has created and allowed us to tap into [the] rapidly growing [gymnastics] market." In her second letter, Ms. 
tes that she and her partner have "achieved [their] goal" of hav;,ng "the first Olympic Training 
Center in New York State." Yet the record is devoid of any evidence that Gymqastique has coached or 
trained any Olympic gymnasts and the petitioner submitted no other evidence to support the alleged 
reputation of Gymnastique. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The record also fails to document any of the petitioner's former roles as a gymnast or gymnastics coach. The 
petitioner submitted no evidence of his purported participation in the Olympics as a gymnast or of his 
coaching in the former Soviet Union. T ocumentation of the petitioner's previous 
coaching positions in the United States. ates that she worked with the peititioner at 
Terry and Don's Gymnastics Center an ledge and his devotion 
our team improve its position on all levels of competition in the state of South Carolina." 
of Planet Gymnastics, affirms that the petitioner worked as "head coach in Teny and 
where he brought up two state cham ibns and his students represented South Carolina at the ~13uth East 
Regionals." Sorin an w wners of Dynamic Gymnastics, also affirm the petitioner's success 
as a coach at the Center. Yet the record contains no corroborative evidence of the petitioner's work at Terry 
and Don's Gymnastics Center or of the Center's reputation. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the, alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
EAC 03 05 1 50987 
Page 8 
The Form 1-140 lists the petitioner's annual salary as "$70,000.00 plus" an-rst letter stated 
that she would "employ [the petitioner] at an annual salary in excess of $70,000.00 per year." Yet tlhe record 
contains no evidence of the petitioner's income or that his compensation is significantly higher than other 
gymnastic coaches or comparable to coaches at the very top of his field. Accordingly, the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel also states, "At a minimum, the various recommendations constitute 'comparable evidence 
to establish the beneficiary's eligibility"' and cites an unpublished AAO decision for the proposition that the 
"totality of the evidence" may establish an alien's "overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary 
ability." Counsel's claim is unmerited for hvo reasons. First, we have considered the petitioner's support letters 
as evidence of his eligibility under six of the seven criteria discussed above and we have noted that several of 
the letters were written by former gymnasts who were Olympic champions. Second, counsel's reliance on an 
unpublished AAO decision is misplaced. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.4(c), designated and published decisions 
of the AAO are binding precedent on all Service employees in the administration of the Act. I-fowever, 
unpublished decisions have no such precedential value. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153r:b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner is a gymnastics coach who is well regarded and highly valued by other 
gymnastic professionals, his employer and his students. However, the record does not establish that the 
petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a gymnast or a coach placing him at the 
very top of his field. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 I 153(b)(I)(A), and his petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.