dismissed EB-1A Case: Fencing

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG a 3 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITIO:-J RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
US. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § ll53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our decision 
and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5. Motions must be 
filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form l-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. The Form l-
290B web page (W\\>w.uscis.govii-290b) contains the latest information on fee, tiling location, and other 
requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~(~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals 
Office 
REV3n01S www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), which makes 
visas available to aliens who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. The director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is 
one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the 
petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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. 
U.S. 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 
(b)(6)
NOA~PRECEDENTDECISION 
Page 3 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitiOner can 
demonstrate the petitioner's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the petitioner's achievements in 
the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient 
qualifYing evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of ChaY1JGthe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Previously Approved 0-1 Nonimmigrant Petition 
While U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. It must be noted that 
many I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, 
e.g. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N. Y. 1989). We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not 
been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See. e.g, Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). Moreover, we need not 
treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 
1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions 
on behalf of the beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
center as the law is clear that an agency is not bound to follow an earlier determination as to a visa 
applicant where that initial determination was based on a misapplication of the law. Glara Fashion, Inc. 
v. Holder, 11 CIV. 889 PAE, 2012 WL 352309 *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012); Royal Siam v. Chertoff, 484 
F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir.2007); Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 177 (D.Mass.2000)) (Dkt.lO); 
Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS. 44 F.Supp.2d 800, 803 (E.D.La.1999), qffd, 248 F.3d 1139 
(5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). 
B. Area of Expertise 
On 
Part 6 of the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140), the petitioner indicated that the job 
title of the proposed employment is that of a fencing instructor. The initial filing brief reflects that his 
expertise in fencing is as an athlete, a coach, and as a referee and that he seeks this immigrant 
classification in the field of fencing. The director's request for evidence (RFE) characterized the 
petitioner's area of expertise as a fencing instructor in the field of fencing. The petitioner continued to 
focus on his achievements as an instructor and referee in response to the director's RFE. The petitioner 
also submitted a letter indicating he will be employed as a fencing instructor. Consequently, we will 
consider his intended employment, and area of expertise, to be as a fencing instructor. See Lee v. 
Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (upholding a finding that competing and coaching 
are two separate areas of expertise). 
Even if we were to consider the petitioner's athletic achievements as qualifYing evidence, he has not 
submitted primary evidence of his athletic awards. Where the regulations require specific, objective 
evidence of achievements, such as awards, the primary evidence of such awards would be copies of the 
awards themselves. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 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. There is no primary evidence demonstrating 
the petitioner received the award for his third place finish at the in 2000, the 
in 2001 through 2003, the 2001 ~ 
or the _ Vice-Champion in 2004. Each of these awards is listed 
within the petitioner's curriculum vitae (CV). In this case, the petitioner submitted his CV, reference 
letters, and foreign language articles without a translator's certification in accordance with the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), all reflecting his awards. He did not, however, submit any 
documentary evidence demonstrating that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained. As 
such, the petitioner has not documented his receipt of awards as an athlete. Even if the petitioner had 
submitted primary evidence of his athletic awards, his most recent awards predate the petition by ten 
years. As a result, the petitioner has not established that he has recent accomplishments as an athlete. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
C. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field qf endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the petitioner is 
the recipient of the prizes or the awards. The clear regulatory language requires that the prizes or the 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation also requires 
the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field of endeavor 
rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The petitioner must 
satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided the prizes or awards of those he has coached as evidence under this criterion. 
The director considered this evidence, but ultimately did not grant the criterion. To meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion, however, the petitioner must be the named award recipient 
establishing he was officially credited with, or given the award. See Hristov v. Roark, 09-CV -2731, 
2011 WL 4711885, at *1, *7 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). The awards ofthose the petitioner coached 
could be considered as comparable evidence if the petitioner demonstrates he meets the USCIS policy 
requirements enabling him to assert a claim of comparable evidence. Such awards, on a case by case 
basis, may also serve as relevant evidence under the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The remaining prizes or awards associated with the petitioner as the recipient relate to his performance 
as an athlete. As his prospective employment is as an instructor, the only qualifYing prizes or awards 
under this criterion are those issued to him, and relating directly to his perfmmance as a coach. The 
petitioner has not submitted any such prizes or awards. As such, he has not submitted qualifying 
evidence of his prizes or awards as a coach or instructor under this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in prqfessional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for "vhich classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional discussion. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned his eligibility claims 
under this criterion. Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen. 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov, 
2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise 
them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 
this criterion. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner 
claims to meet or for \vhich the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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 class{fication is sought. 
This criterion requires not only that the petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that he actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judge" 
implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have been directly judging the work of 
others in the same or an allied field in which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the 
present petition. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of this criterion requires evidence of the petitioner'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." The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. 
Holder, 670 F.3d at 741; Soltane, 381 F.3d at 145; Dar, 891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. For the reasons 
outlined below, a review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from dated December 28, 2013. is the 
former Executive Director of the _ . . Mr. l confirms 
that the petitioner served as a referee at competitions under the sanction of the 
with which is affiliated. The record also contains website materials 
confirming various competitions where the petitioner officiated as a referee. Within his letter, 
explains that the petitioner is a true asset to the fencing community and that he is one of the 
best referees currently residing in the United States. 
The record, however, lacks evidence detailing what duties the petitioner performed as a referee. For 
example, the petitioner did not submit official competition rules showing that his activities in the 
tournaments constituted participation as a judge of the work of others. If the petitioner's duties 
involved simply enforcing the rules of a match and sportsmanlike competition, then his participation as 
a judge cannot be said to have involved evaluating or judging the skills or qualifications of the 
participants. Without further evidence that he judged the work of others, such as evidence that he 
awarded points or exercised his judgment in choosing the ultimate winner, evidence regarding 
officiating at a match is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfY. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions in his field. These contributions 
must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The petitioner must 
also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the contributions 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final requirement is that the 
contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to 
an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some 
meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in 
APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major significance 
connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); 
see also Visinscaia, 4 F: Supp. 3d at 135-136. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of 
these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner indicates his contributions in the field are the accomplishments of those he coached, his 
coaching style, and his performance as a referee. The director determined that the petitioner did not 
meet the requirements of this criterion. Specifically, the director stated the letters contain general 
comments about the petitioner's level of expertise in the field. The director also concluded that even 
though the petitioner assisted two athletes in achieving success, that this achievement is not unusual for 
those who coach, and that the petitioner did not establish this success constitutes a contribution of major 
significance within the field. Finally, the director determined that the petitioner's performance as an 
assistant coach on a championship collegiate team is not a contribution of major significance in the 
field, as this achievement was at the college level. 
On appeal the petitioner indicates the director "discounted to the point of dismissing the letters" and 
implied that the director assessed the letters in an arbitrary and capricious manner. We will review the 
letters below. 
In the petitioner's initial filing brief and RFE response, he identified the contributions described in the 
letters as his unique coaching style in the old French or European style; his in-depth knowledge of 
fencing rules; his refereeing experience, which brings new tactical and teclmical worldwide tendencies 
to the United States; and being the youngest international referee at the time he received his diploma. 
Additional letters describe him as one ofthe best sabre or fencing coaches and referees in the country. 
Such general and conclusory opinions that repeat the statutory standard do not establish that the 
petitioner has made contributions of major significance in the field. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. 
Supp. at 1108, ajj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates , Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 
at *5 (S.D.N.Y.); 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 
1990). 
The petitioner has not submitted evidence that describes or otherwise demonstrates the impact of his 
work, such that he has exerted a significant influence in the field. It is not sufficient to be an 
experienced and talented coach or referee in order to satisfy this criterion. The petitioner must have 
demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. Vague, solicited letters from local 
colleagues that do not specifically identifY contributions or provide specific examples of how those 
contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 
2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated the conclusion 
(b)(6)
]'-iON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" was 
insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The petitioner does not specifically address the director's statement that the petitioner's 
performance as 
an assistant coach on a championship collegiate team is not a contribution of major significance in the 
field. A review of the letters from the Head Coach and Assistant Head Coach at The 
University reveals similar language. For example, the undated letter from 
Head Coach of The 
Associate 
Teams, states: 
[The petitioner] came to the ' for a Biochemistry internship 
in 2011 . . . He first was a sparring partner for the University fencing teams, and has 
worked \Vith the team continuously since his arrival. We decided to move him quickly 
from sparring partner to a volunteer coach as I became aware of his extensive 
knowledge and expertise in fencing ... Under our direction, numerous students have 
achieved success, Including [sic] top performances at in events, junior and senior 
events, and local competitions ... 
The November 15, 2012 letter from Head Coach of the 
-----~-
University _ Teams, states: 
[The petitioner] came to the University for a Chemistry/Biology 
internship in 2011 ... he became a sparring partner for the University fencing teams, 
and has worked with the team as a volunteer continuously since his arrival. We have 
promoted him to volunteer coach as I became aware of his extensive knowledge and 
expertise in sport [sic] of fencing. Under his direction numerous students have achieved 
success, including top performances at in events, junior and senior events, and 
local competitions ... 
continues as follows: 
[The petitioner's] extraordinary abilities and fencing would not only benefit our 
University and my club but also the ... I strongly support [the petitioner's] 
application to get a work visa to be able to coach in my club . . . I am convinced that 
his continued presence here will lead to further achievements of U.S. fencers, as well as 
the elevation of this skill of referees for national and international events. [The 
petitioner] will be very beneficial to the United States in the sport of fencing ... 
concludes: 
[The petitioner's] extraordinary abilities in the sport of fencing benefit not only 
where he currently on volunteers, but also the sport of fencing in the United States. I 
strongly support [the petitioner's] application for a work visa in the Central 
I am convinced that his continued presence here will 
(b)(6)
Page9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
lead to further achievements of U.S. fencers, as well as the elevation of the skill of 
referees as [sic] national and international events. [The petitioner] will be very 
beneficial to the United States in the sport of fencing ... 
As a general concept, when a petitioner has provided affidavits from different persons, but the language 
and structure contained within the affidavits is notably similar, the trier of fact may consider those 
similarities when evaluating the content of the letters. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration 
Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d eir. 2006). When affidavits contain such similarities, it is reasonable to 
infer a common source from where the similarities derive. Cf Mei Chai Ye v. US. Dept. of Justice, 489 
F.3d 517, 519 (2d eir. 2007). Because someone other than the authors appears to have drafted some 
portions of the letters, the letters possess diminished probative value. 
Regardless, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 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 BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative 
evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). The opinions of experts in the field are not 
\Vithout weight and have received consideration within this decision. users may, in its discretion, use 
as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). However, USeiS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Jd. Based on the extensive 
similarities between the above letters, users may accord them less weight. 
The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
users may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. users may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. See id at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 
502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). See also Matter ofSofjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (eomrn'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comrn'r 1972)). Accordingly, the content of the letters is 
insufficient to establish the petitioner's eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
explains that the petitioner served as a sparring partner for University 
and they promoted him to volunteer coach. confirms that the petitioner is assistant 
for the sabre team. identifies four students who achieved success under the petitioner's 
direction. He does not assert that the students were primarily under the tutelage of the petitioner during 
his time as a volunteer coach. Notably, asserts that the students achieved success "under our 
direction." While the record contains evidence of the success of University's 
fencing team, the materials the petitioner provided from 
indicate that the university has "the most awarded fencing program in the" United States. 
Accordingly, the petitioner's service as a volunteer and assistant coach for a team that is already an 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page tO 
award-winning program is not, by itself, evidence that he has contributed to the field at a level 
consistent with original contributions of major significance. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter from The 
University . , affirming the petitioner's influence on his performance. 
however, did not sign the letter. Accordingly, it has no evidentiary value. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted pursuant 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and found that the 
petitioner did not establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner makes only passing reference to this 
issue, asserting that the he "performs a leading or critical role as an athlete, coach and referee for 
organizations that have distinguished reputations." The petitioner did not identify an incorrect 
application of law or statement of fact underlying the director's fmding that the petitioner had not 
established how his role is considered leading or critical. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned his 
eligibility claims under this criterion. Desravines v. US. Atty. Gen., 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 
2009) (a passing reference in the discussion section of a brief without substantive discussion is 
insufficient to raise that ground on appeal). The record supports the director's determination that the 
petitioner has not established how his role as a volunteer and assistant coach is either leading within the 
hierarchy of the organization or critical in that it has notably impacted the organization. 
D. Comparable Evidence 
Within the initial filing brief, the petitioner indicates "the awards won by him are the medals won by the 
athletes he coached ... " Within the RFE response, the petitioner describes the awards won by those he 
coached as "comparable to a prize awarding national or international recognition." On appeal, the 
petitioner states that the director failed to consider such awards under the comparable evidence 
provision at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable evidence if he or she 
is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) do not readily apply to his 
occupation and states: "If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the 
petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility." Further, the 
Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) at Chapter 22.2(i)(l)(A) provides in pertinent part: 
The petitioner should explain clearly why it has not submitted evidence that would 
satisf)r at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the 
evidence it has submitted is "comparable" to that required under 
8 CFR 204.5(h)(3). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~JON 
Page 11 
As indicated in this decision, throughout the proceeding the petitioner specifically addressed five of the 
ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). It is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria 
are not readily applicable to his occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the 
objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). As the petitioner has not attempted to 
demonstrate that the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) do not readily apply to his 
occupation, the petitioner may not rely on comparable evidence to qualifY for this immigrant 
classification. 
Regardless, if the petitioner had demonstrated his eligibility to claim comparable evidence, he would 
still not satisfY the prizes or awards criterion with comparable evidence. While a petitioner who is a 
Division I coach whose athlete wins the top 
collegiate competition while under the petitioner's principal tutelage might constitute evidence 
comparable to that in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) as explained in the AFM, the petitioner has not 
established that the athletes he identifies were primarily under his tutelage. Specifically, as discussed 
above, neither nor __ ~ ~ - ~ - -· provides specifics regarding the nature of the petitioner's 
role for the students as a volunteer coach and the letter from a student is unsigned. 
E. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim ofextraordinmy ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories , in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the 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. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian , a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.2 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding , we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 1 03(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 
USC IS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).