dismissed EB-1A Case: Exercise And Sport Psychology

(b)(6)
.•. ~, 
DATE: JAN 3 1 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citiz enship and Immigration S e rvic~s 
Admini strative Appeals orrice (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave ., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
relaled to this matter have been returned to the office that originally dcc"ided your case . Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office . 
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 reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-2908, 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)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
. ,. 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on October 10, 2012. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on November 9, 2012. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to parts 2 and 5 of the petition, filed on June 25, 2012, the petitioner seeks classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability, as a "professor/consultant," pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). According to her 
statement dated June 19, 2012, filed in support of the petition, her "goal is to move the United States 
to continue [her] line of work in the field of Exercise and Sport Psychology, focusing on 
performance enhancement and quality of life in areas such as Education, Athletics and Business." 
The director determined that the petitioner has not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for ·classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as a 
professor/consultant. 
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 § 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(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. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(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, the petitioner files a 24-page statement and supporting documents, many of which the 
petitioner had previously filed. The petitioner notes that the director found in the petitioner ' s favor 
as relating to the participation as a judge criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The petitioner then contests the director's findings as relating to the published material about the 
alien criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the original contributions of major 
significance criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments criterion under the reguhttion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the 
very top !n the field of exercise and sport psychology, and she has not sustained national or 
international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). Accordingly, the AAO must dismiss the 
petitioner's appeal. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
I. THE 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. 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high 
standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 
101st Cong., 2d Se~s . 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov . 29, 1991). The term 
"extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. 8 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, internationally 
recognized award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three. of the ten 
. categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) -(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
-this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld 
the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 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 
conce·rns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-
22. 
1 
Specifically, the court slated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
(b)(6)
J 
Page 4 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the reg ulation s. 
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 ofthree types of evidence (as the AAO concluded). " Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
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 case, the AAO affirms the 
director's finding that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting three types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)'(i)-(x), and has not 
demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of exercise 
and sport psychology , or has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R . 
§§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
Ii. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) , the petitioner can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor by 
presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major , internationally recognized award. In 
this case, the petitioner has not asserted or shown through her evidence that she is the recipient of a 
major, internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, the 
petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In his October 10, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish she met 
this criterion. · On appeal, the petitioner has not specifically challenged the director's finding. As 
such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, ·as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. 
United States Att 'y Gen., 401 F. 3d 1226 , 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark , No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court 
found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 Counsel does not claim that-the petitioner meet s the regul ato ry categories of evidence not discussed in. this decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In his October 10, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish she met 
this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has not specifically challenged the director's finding. As 
such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 
F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL4711885 at *9. 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she has provided "national 
newspaper articles ... as well as ... several letters from major Portuguese media institutions, which 
attest the validity of the petitioner['s] statement relative to the newspapers being of national caliber 
and considered major media." On appeal, the etitioner has provided translations for material 
published in and . The AAO, however, will 
not consider these documents because the petitioner should have provided these documents to the 
director. In his July 7, 2012 request for evidence (RFE), the director requested the translations of the 
published material. The petitioner, however, failed to provide the requested evidence in her 
September 12, 2012 response to the director's RFE. Instead, the petitioner stated in page 3 of her 
response to the RFE she "believe[s] that there is no need to translate the paper clippings previously 
submitted~" Under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the 
petitioner is required to provide the necessary translations for any published material. A petitioner 
may submit anything in support of an appeal, including new evidence; however, where a service 
center has requested specific evidence in a request for evidence, and the petitioner failed to comply 
with the request, that particular evidence will not be considered on appeal. · Where a petitioner has 
been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to 
that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of 
Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766-67 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 
537 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner wishes evidence to be considered, she must submit the documents 
in response to the director's request for evidence. !d. 
Moreover, even if the AAO were to consider the translations submitted on appeal, the petitioner has 
not shown she meets this criterion. First, the petitioner has failed to show that the published material 
is about the petitioner, relating to her work. For e'xample, the petitioner has provided a May 7, 2009 
banner blurb entitled " " This entire blurb contains 
one sentence and mentions the petitioner's name once. The one-sentence blurb is about 
support of [the petitioner's] book, not about the petitioner. The petitioner has provided a May 8, 
2010 Record piece entitled" ." The entire piece 
consists of four sentences, mentioning the petitioner's name once. The petitioner has provided a 
(b)(6)
' 0 
Page 6 
December 29, 2010 article, entitled'· 
" This article consists of six paragraphs and mentions the petitioner's name 
and her book '' ' once. As its title suggests, the article is about Portuguese 
tennis player _, and mentions that he had requested the petitioner ' s service. The article 
is not about the petitioner. The petitioner has provided a May 2011 article, entitled 
. " This article consists of two paragraphs, and a! though it references 
that the Portuguese tennis player "began working . . . with two psychologists, " it does not 
specifically mention the petitioner by name. As suggested by its title, the article is about the tennis 
player, not the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner has not provided any information relating to the 
author of this 2011 article. The petitioner has provided an April 8, 2011 article, entitled 
This six-paragraph article mentions the petitioner's name twice. The article is not about the 
petitioner, rather, as its title suggests, it is about and his coaching team of a proximately 10 
people, including the petitioner. The petitioner has provided a May 10, 2009 article entitled 
-·- - The article consists of 16 paragraphs 
and mentions the petitioner's name three times . As its title suggests, the at1icle is not about the 
petitioner, as relating to her work; rather it is about tennis players' tics, and includes the petitioner 
and other professionals' commentaries on the topic. 
Second, the petitioner has provided insufficient evidence showing that constitutes 
a professional or major trade publication or other major media. The petitioner has provided three 
articles. One of them, an August 8, 2003 article entitled 
references the petitioner's ·receipt of the 
academic award from the but is not about the 
petitioner, relating to her work . According to a November 6, 2012 letter from 
Director of the , "the Portuguese newspaper is an 
in-print weekly publication (28.000 average circulation), distributed nationally and internationally to 
85 countries, including the United States of America, and is therefore considered major media 
(annual average circulation of 1.456.000) ." , however, did not specify that in 2003 or 
2004, ~ constituted major media. Rather, her information relating to 
relates to its status when she signed the letter in November 2012. In addition, 
failed to specify the basis of her knowledge relating to circulation or reach. 
The Portuguese Association of Audit Bureau of Circulation (APCT) index to the publications 
included in the information bulletin on Portuguese media, from which the data on and 
derives, does not even list 
Third, the petitioner has Qrovided an undated letter frolTl Tennis Editor of and a 
Tennis Commentator for stating, "[i]n 1998 , wrote and published an article in 
(national monthly publication) about [the petitioner's] Master degree thesis project, 
which was focused on developing and implementing a program to enhance the performance of elite 
tennis players from the of the ." The 
record, however, lacks a copy of the 1998 article or any information relating to 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2) provides that the non-existence or other unavailability of 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. The same regulation also provides the 
procedure for documenting the non-existence or unavailability for required evidence and the 
requirements for submitting secondary evidence or affidavits. The petitioner has not complied with 
that regulation or submitted secondary evidence or affidavits. As such, the petitioner has failed to 
show that the 1998 article is about the petitioner, relating to her work in the field, 
or is published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media . 
Fourth, the petitioner has provided documents relating to television and radio stations interviewing 
her. According to an undated letter from a senior journalist and anchor for 
the petitioner "and her pioneer projects in 
were featured on te1mis program ' on [the] network 
... [on] 09/05/2009 at 2:30pm. " The letter further provides that " is a national and 
international television broadcasting company" and its program "is viewed across the 
country by a wide audience ." According to a September 10, 2012 letter from a 
journalist for the the petitioner "was 
interviewed b rthel national network (on] the 30th of April 2010 in [the] program ' 
featuring [her] work as a performance enhancement consultant, 
[her] published [book] and successes in the area of applied sport 
psychology." The letter further provides that the interview , "heard by a wide audience across the 
country, was very educative and inspirational, and _ believe[s] her advice together with 
the resources she provided by publishing her applied book with applied strategies for success , 
contributed to improve the lives of many individuals." According to an undated letter from 
a Portuguese radio station, the petitioner "was interviewed [by a] national 
radio statement, which is heard by a wide audience in the whole country, in which she spoke about 
[her] book , her work in the area of performance enhancement and well[- ]being applied to tennis , as 
well as applied to other sports and domains such as education, health and business ." 
First, these broadcasts are not published material with an author as required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . Second, the petitioner provided no transcripts or other primary evidence of the 
broadcasts. Regardless~ none of these letters or any other evidence in the record are sufficient to 
establish that the television or radio station constitutes major media. The evidence submitted to 
show the status of the television and radio stations is from individuals associated with the stations. 
Such self-promotional evidence has minimal evidentiary value. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-
5105 SJO 10 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), «ff.'d, 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the 
AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine ' s 
status as major media). The petitioner has not supported the self-promotional evidence with more 
independent evidence or official data published by the media outlets. 
The record also contains evidence relating to other published material. The petitioner has provided 
an April 2009 Portuguese article relating to the petitioner ' s book 
The petitioner, however, has provided 
no information relating to the author of the article. The petitioner has provided published material 
from the : publications from 2001 to 2002 and 2006. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
The petitioner, however, has provided no document showing that any of the material is published in 
a professional or major trade publication or constitutes other major media. The petitioner has 
provided an August 29, 2002 article, entitled ' " Although the 
article mentions that the petitioner was then studying at the 
the article, as its name suggests, is about Portuguese lace that the petitioner's mother 
was making at the time, not about the petitioner, relating to her work. The petitioner has also failed 
to provide evidence that is a professional or major trade r.ublication or constitutes other 
major media. The petitioner has provided evidence showing that the . published a 
color photograph of her with her mother and U.S. Congressman in December 2011, 
and published a color photograph of her with her mother and two other 
people. The petitioner, however , has provided no evidence showing that the publications are about 
her, relating to her work, or that they are professional or major trade publications or constitute other 
major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of published material about her in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media , relating to her work in the field for 
which classification is sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
( . 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In his October 10, 201 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner has met this criterion . The 
AAO disagree s. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States , 229 F. Supp . 2d 1025 , 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), aj['d , 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. Dep 't of.Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 
145-46 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
According to a January 23 , 2012 letter from Fellow and Certified Consultant of 
at 
the University of the petitioner "was a student representative for and 
enthusiastically participated in committee discussions and activities (conference abstract reviews, 
etc.)." According to an document entitled" 
" the petitioner was a student member of 
It is unclear from Professor letter , the 
document or any other evidence in the record what exactly the petitioner did as an student 
member or if her duties as a student member included participation as a judge of others ' work. 
Similarly, although the record includes a February 11, 2012 letter from Professor at 
the Department of Kinesiology , stating that the 
petitioner "has been a reviewer for several organizations and journals in the field, such as 
and 
" neither the letter nor any other evidence in the record indicates the basis of Professor 
knowledge. In addition, although a March 2004 newsletter from indicates that the 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
petitioner was an applied coordinator, it fails to specify that the petitioner participated as a judge of 
others' work. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of her participation, either i[ldividually or on 
a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, relying primarily on reference/expert letters, the petitioner asserts that she meets this 
criterion. The petitioner's references include Sales Representative in Portugal; 
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor of the 
, Professor ___J Former President; 
Former Director of Athletics at the 
Director of and Mr. These 
letters refer to the petitioner's work in sport psychology as "pioneer[ing]," "unique[]," and 
"original." According to Mr. the petitioner "has demonstrated her expertise as an ·applied 
sport psychology professional and is considered an international scholar on sport psychology and 
coaching tennis." Notwithstandi~g these claims, the petitioner has not shown that she meets this 
criterion? 
First, although the petitioner has shown her dissertation work to be original, she has not shown that it 
constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field of exercise and sport psychology. 
According to a February 10, 2012 letter from Mr. the petitioner "developed and implemented , 
as part of her doctoral dissertation, an original intervention which fostered hope, athletic, and 
academic performances of • _ _ student-athletes ." The 
petitioner "disseminated the findings of [her] projects by presenting in local, national, and 
international conferences, and by publishiJ:tg articles.in several books and journals of recognized 
reputation in her field." According to Mr. subsequent letter, dated August 23, 2012, the 
petitioner's dissertation work "resulted in improved performance both in academics and athletics." 
Mr. stated in his February 2, 2012 letter that the petitioner's dissertation work resulted in "the 
student-athletes [having] significant improvements in their performances and well-being, yielding 
higher .retention rates ... [andl her intervention instrument became a standard of excellence the 
academic side appreciated." , Head Women's Tennis Coach at the 
3 The petitioner has also provided an undated letter from , President of the Executive Board of 
This.letter has no evidentiary value and will not be 
considered because the petitioner has not provided a certified translation of the foreign language document , as required 
under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § l03.2(b)(3). Although the record contains what appears to be a translation certificate, 
· the translation certificate is in a for'eign language and it has not been properly translated. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
stated in his February 20, 2012 letter that the petitioner's "doctoral 
dissertation focused on developing and implementing an original intervention which contributed to 
foster 
hope, athletic and academic perform ance in university student-athletes. " None of these letters 
or any other evidence in the record, however, show that the petitioner's dissertation work constitutes 
contributions of major significance in the field. The mere claim that the petitioner's doctoral 
dissertation improved student-athletes' performance both in academics and athletics, or that the 
petitioner's methods were effective for student-athletes in one university in the United States , is 
insufficient to show that her work or methods constitute contributions of major significance in the 
entire field of exercise and sport psychology. 
In addition, Mr. statement that the petitioner's dissertation "is currently available in [the 
university 's] library where many, professionals from diverse pm1 of the globe have requested it, 
downloaded and used her work as a base for their own projects " is not supported by the evidence in 
the record. Specifically, according to what appears to be an undat ed email from of 
, the petitioner's dissertation was 
"checked [out] four times ," between 2005 and 2012; and her work has been cited in 20 articles. The 
petitioner has provided insufficient evidence showing that these numbers show her work has been 
widely accepted and adopted in the field or that her. work is significant, let alone constitutes major 
significance, in the field of exercise and sport psychology as a whole. 
According to an August 14, 2012 letter from a senior lecturer at 
Department of Sport Science, he accessed the petitioner's Ph.D. dissertation and is 
"currently implementing a similar project among 113 first-year (freshmen) Student-Athletes of the 
" Associate Professor at Graduate 
School of Education and former fellow student with the petitioner , stated in her August 23, 2012 
letter that "[b ]ased on [the petitioner's] successful results [relating to her dissertation] in improving 
hope , academic and athletic performance of student-athletes, (Professor implemented a 
similar project at , called ' which was funded 
by the US Department of Education for two years. helped 50 African American high 
school dropouts to learn important life skills using basketball. " The letters from two profes sors , orie 
of whom attended the same Ph.D. program as the petitioner, who have relied on the petitioner's 
work in their work are insufficient to show that the petitioner's work constitutes contributions of 
major significance in the field as a whole. · 
Second, evidence relating to the petitioner ' s presentations in conferences, workshops or clinics and 
evidence relating to the publication of the petitioner ' s work is insufficient to demonstrate that her 
work constitutes contributions of major significance in the field of exercise and sport psychology as 
a whole. The petitioner has provided a certificate of presentation, indicating that she presented a 
paper entitled ' 
at the in 2005. According to a 
September 7, 2012 letter from Professor the petitioner's "articles were published in well-
known, high-reputation professional publications in [the] field." . Professor vague statement 
that " [m]any of the resource s [the petitioner] conceived and published ... are currently being 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
implemented across the U.S . as well as in other parts of the globe" is, however, not supported by the 
evidence in the record. The statement by Mr. that the petitioner's book is "widely spread" is 
also not supported by the evidence in the record. 
Specifically, the record contains two letters from top 100 
players: According to an undated letter from Mr. a 
former , he "still use[s the petitioner's] service and [he] believe[s her] 
professionalism and expert knowledge have provided [him] with a[] unique opportunity to develop 
as a human been [sic] as well as an athlete." The letter further states that the petitioner has "played a 
crucial role in [his] development and helped [him] reach [his] goals in life as in fhis] professional 
career as a tennis player." ·Similarly, according to an undated letter from Mr. a former 
_ the petitioner has "worked with [him] to assist to enhance [his] 
performance by the use of [her] unique and original methodology." These are the only two specific 
examples of the world's top 100 tennis players attesting to the effectiveness of the petitioner 's work 
and methodologies. These two specific examples of client athletes, however , are insufficient to 
show that the petitioner 's work and methodologies are being widely accepted in her occupation and 
implemented, such that they constitute contributions of major significance in her field of exercise 
and sport psychology as a whole. 
Third, evidence relating to the petitioner's involvement in the 
the and . 
_ _ . is insufficient to demonstrate that her work constitutes 
contributions of major significance in the field of exercise and sports psychology as a whole. 
According to a February 11, 2012 letter from Professor 
fThe petitioner a ]s a member of the 
, . . .. coordinated the project on Mexican athletes and 
coaches who participated in the :, and she was also 
involved in the grant on and coaches. [The 
petitioner] was part of the grant project developing the Coaching 
Academy Program curriculum, which resulted in the publication of the 
." Additionally, [she] was involved in the 
research grant examining the role of parents in junior tennis 
success , which resulted in the publication of the '7 
------~ 
in 2010. 
According to a February 20, 2012 letter from Mr. 
project examining the role parents play in tennis 
publication in 2010 of the ' 
the petitioner "worked on a grant 
success and failure, which resulted in the 
' in which [the petitioner] co-authored 
two chapters." 
The petitioner, however, has failed to provide evidence showing that her involvement with these 
organizations is indicative that her work in the field of exercise and sport psychology constitutes 
(b)(6)Page 12 
contributions of major significance in the field. Indeed, according to Former 
Director, the petitioner's involvement with was 
because, at least in part , of her ability to read and speak Spanish. In addition , Professor vague 
statement made in her September 7, 2012 letter that "[m]any of the resources [the petitioner] 
conceived and published ... are currently being implemented across the U.S. as well as in other 
parts of the globe " is not supported by the evidence in the record. Similarly , the statement from Mr. 
that the petitioner's book "was accepted by a wide variety of people " is also not supported by 
the evidence in the record . As discussed, the record contains letters from two APT top 100 tennis 
players who are clients, not members of her field, and only two professors who have used her work 
to produce promising results. 
Fourth, evidence relating to the petitioner's work being copyrighted is not sufficient to show that her 
work constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has provided a 
document from the U.S . Register of Copyrights indicating that the petitioner ' s August II , 2004 
publication " 
is copyrighted. A copyrighted material is similar to a patent, which the AAO has 
held does not necessarily constitute evidence of a track record of success with some degree of 
influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State Dep 't of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 
215,221 n.7 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Rather, the significance ofthe innovation must be determined 
on a case-by-case basis . !d. A copyrighted material or a patent recognizes the originality of a 
writing or an idea, respectively, but it does not demonstrate that the petitioner has made a 
contribution of major significance in the field through her development of this writing or idea. 
Moreover, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be 
disregarded simply because it is "self-serving. " See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 
(BIA 2000) (citing cases). The Board has also held, however, "[w]e not only encourage, but require 
the introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence , where available." !d. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner 
to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-8-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). Vague, solicited 
letters from colleagu es or associates that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030 , 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) , aff'd in part , 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).
4 
The opinions of 
experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
Int 'l, 19 l&l';J Dec. 791 , 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as 
this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien ' s eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
4 In 2010 , the Kazarian cou11 reiterated that the AAO 's conclusion that " letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
alien 's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give 
less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated , in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Matter of Caron Int 'I, 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec . 
158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'! Comm'r 1972)) . 
The reference/expert letters in the record, including those not specifically mentioned above , 
primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of contributions without specifically 
identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level 
consistent with major signific ance in the field . Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner 's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava , 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associat es, Inc. v. 
Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly, USCIS 
need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. United State s All 'y Gen. , 745 F. 
Supp. 9 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The petitioner has also failed to submit sufficient corroborating evidence 
in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the 
reference/expert letters . 
Significantly, at least two of the reference/expert letters contain virtually the same language, 
including the same typographical error , when discussing the petitioner 's role in a project , 
suggesting that the language in the reference/expert letters is not the authors' own. See Surind er 
Singh, 438 F.3d at 148; Mei Chai Ye, 489 F.3d 517 at 519 . stated in her undated letter: 
. . . rThe petitioner 1 had a leading and critical role in the 
conducted in 2002/2004 at the 
Sport Psychology Laboratory, USA. 
[The petitioner] performed her duties as a coordinator of the research team with 
excellence during the diverse phases of the project (validation of the Spanish version 
of the questionnaires, data entry, data analysis and write up) until the dissemination of 
the project results. [The petitioner]'s ability to read and speak Spanish was unique 
within her research team and was critical to make [sic] this project possible. 
The results of the were disseminated in an Olympic conferenc e in 
Mexico City, in which [the petitioner] presented two lectures: " 
'and' 
- . 
Taking advantage of [the petitioner's] versatility in speaking diverse languages, she 
was asked to present the results in Spanish. This fact was critical for the audience . 
composed of Olympic coaches and athletes to understand and capture all the 
information conveyed, especially the strategies that were found to contribute the most 
for Olympicsuccess. 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
Professor and Director at the 
stated in his September3, 2012 letter: 
fThe petitioner] had a leading and critical role in the 
roject: 
for the 
" by performing her duties as coordinator 
and research team member with excellence during all the diverse phases of the project 
that include study design, data collection and the dissemination of the project results. 
[The petitioner]'s ability to read and speak Spanish was unique with her research 
team and was critical to make [sic] this project possible, as it allowed [the petitioner] 
to verify the accuracy of the Spanish version of the questionnaire, made possible the 
analysis of the qualitative information, as well as the presentation of the results in the 
native language of the target audience. The results of the were 
disseminated in an Olympic conference in Mexico City, in which [the petitioner] . 
presented two lectures: " 
and' 
' in Spanish, to ensure the audience 
composed of Olympic coaches and athletes would understand and capture the 
information conveyed, especially regarding the strategies that were found to 
contribute the mostfor Olympic success. 
In addition, at least two reference /expert letters contain the same language, induding the same 
typographic error. Mr. undated letter concludes with "I trust [ have provided the information 
the necessary information. Should you need additional information feel free to contact me." 
(Emphasis Added.) Ms. undated letter similarly concludes with "I trust I have provided the 
information the necessary information. Should you need additional information feel free to contact 
me." (Emphasis Added .) In short, the record contains evidence suggesting the language in the 
reference/expert letters is not the authors' own . 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of her original scientific, scholarly, artistic , 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field of exercise and sport 
psychology. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
In his October 10, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner has met this criterion. 
The record includes evidence that the petitioner has published a . number of scholarly articles , a 
handbook, a playbook and a book. Accordingly, the petitioner has presented evidence of her 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
Evidence of the di~play of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
In his October 10, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish she met 
this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has not specifically challenged the director's tinding. 
\ 
Indeed, according to her statement on appeal, this criterion is not applicable to her occupation. As 
such , the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda , 401 
F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 47U885 at *9. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishment s that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion based on her involvement in the 
None of the . - . 
evidence in the record, however, establishes that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical 
role for these organizations or establishments. Rather, the evidence shows , at most , that the 
petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for projects sponsored by these organizations or 
establishments. 
As supporting evidence, the petitioner has provided a February 20, 2012 letter from Professor 
stating that the petitioner ' s "ability to speak and read Spanish granted [her] the opportunity to help 
coordinate the want project for the 
which -
culminated with the presentation of the findings at the conference in Mexico 
City. " (Emphasis added.) The letter also dis~usses the petitioner's involvement with the 
· as relating to projects the petitioner completed for these organizations or 
establishments. The letter concludes that "[t]he information provided illustrated that [the petitioner] 
has performed a leading or critical role [in] projects conducted for established organizations that 
have distinguished reputation . .. . " (Emphasis added.) According to a subsequent letter from 
Professor dated September 3, 2012, the petitioner "has performed in a critical role in the 
work (] conducted for institutions with distinguished reputations, such as 
" The letter further provides that the petitioner "played a critical role in 
proposing, organizing and conducting the ' ' 
· · · · - at the 
pre-conference workshop. " None of Professor letters or any other evidence in the record 
demonstrate that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for any of the organizations 
or establishments as a whole . 
Similarly, according to a September 4, 2012 letter from Ms. the petitioner "had a leading and 
critical role in · ' 
'" (Emphasis added.) Specifically, the letter states that the 
petitioner "performed her duties as coordinator of the research team with excellence during the 
· diverse phases of the project ... until the dissemination of the project results ." (Emphasis added.) 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
In addition, "[t]he results of the were disseminated in an Olympic conference in 
Mexico City, in which [the petitioner] presented two lectures." (Emphasis added.) According to a 
September 6, 2012 letter from Director of 
, the petitioner "has performed in a leading or critical role in several projects conducted by 
Dr. and his research team, for , such as the 
the 
book, and in helping conduct a ." (Emphasis added.) 
None of the above reference/expert letters or any other evidence in the record establish that the 
petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation, as required under the plain language of the criterion. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Rather, the evidence, at best, shows the petitioner ' s role in projects sponsored by 
these organizations or establishments, which regularly sponsored an unspecified number of projects. 
The evidence in the record is not indicative of the petitioner's role or impact for any of the 
organization or establishment as a whole. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that she has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not 
metthis criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In his October 10, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish she met 
this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has l)Ot specifically challenged the director's finding. 
Indeed, according to her statement on appeal, this criterion is not applicable to her occupation. As 
such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 
F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
In his October 10, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish she met 
this criterion. On appeal , the ·petitioner ha~ not specifically challenged the director's finding . 
Indeed, according to her statement on appeal, this criterion is not applicable to her occupation. As 
such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 
F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
III. 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 have 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 
"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," 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. 
§ 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. 5 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(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 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly , the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
r 
5 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of.Justice, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, 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)(1)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150 .1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F .R. § 2.1 (2003) ; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS , is 
the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).