dismissed EB-1A Case: Field Hockey

Identifying 1(lta deleted to 
prevent clean) ~.mwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: NAY 0 1 2012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
c}t. $--
Perry Rhew ~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center (the director), initially granted the 
employment-based immigrant visa petition on October 9,2001. On September 10, 2010, the director 
issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval of the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140) 
(NOIR). In a Notice of Revocation (NOR), dated October 19, 2010, the director ultimately revoked the 
approval of the 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 the athletics, specifically, 
in the sport of field hockey, as both a player and a coach, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § l1S3(b)(1)(A). In revoking the approval of 
the petition, the director determined that the petitioner has not provided clear evidence of her intent 
to continue work in the area of expertise in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(S). The 
director pointed out in the NOIR that counsel has submitted no evidence regarding the petitioner's 
continued work in the United States as a field hockey player or coach, other than providing the 
following statement (grammar as it appears in the original), which is in counsel's brief filed in 
support of the petition: 
[The petitioner] is an excellent candidate for the U.S. Olympic of the Women Hockey 
field team as a coach also in the track and field which she coached before if her 
petition is granted, she will be of great support of the athletic field in the United 
States. 
The director further noted in the NOIR that during a September 1, 200S interview, the petitioner 
admitted to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer that since her arrival to the 
United States in May 1999, she had not taught field hockey in a structured environment. Instead, she 
had been working as a seamstress. The NOIR also notes that although the petitioner submitted a 
letter from the Hockey Sports Club, suggesting that it had hired the petitioner as a field hockey 
coach in 2006, the petitioner disclosed during a June 2S, 2010 telephone conversation with a USCIS 
officer that she had begun working at the Hockey Sports Club in December 2009, not 2006. On 
October 1, 2010, counsel submitted documents in response to the NOIR. Ultimately, on October 19, 
2010, the director revoked the approval of the petition, finding that "the petitioner has not 
established that she intended to or has, since her arrival in the U.S. more than eleven years ago, 
continued to work in her field of expertise as a field hockey coach." 
On appeal, counsel submits a two-page brief and (1) documents relating to the California Cup, an 
international field hockey tournament, held in May 2011, (2) photographs of the petitioner coaching 
the young players of ) the petitioner's USA Field Hockey 
basic coach July 2011, and (4) the petitioner's 
invitation from the USA Field Hockey to the 41st FIH Statutory Congress, held in November 2008. 
As presented in his brief filed in support of the instant appeal, counsel's entire analysis and argument 
are as follows (grammar as it appears in the original): 
Page 3 
Petitioner submitted her 1-140 petItIOn accompanied by sufficient documentary 
evidence showing her national and international achievement in the field of Hockey 
and based on such evidence the [USCIS] approved her petition, since no job offer is 
required for such classification or a labor certification all was required is for the 
petitioner to show her commitment to coach in the field of Hockey the law does not 
require any specific number of hours or how many teams she is required to coach, she 
showed that she coached at the Hockey sports club, she submitted team practice 
schedule and prove that she was paid through a W-2, and as the law requires she 
submitted a letter of intent to have the petitioner participate in a tournament .... 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO upholds the director's revocation of the approval of the 
petition on the basis that the petitioner has not presented "clear evidence that the alien is coming to 
the United States to continue work in the area of expertise," as required under the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Moreover, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established her 
eligibility for the exclusive classification sought because she meets none of the ten criteria under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). As such, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the sport of field 
hockey and she has not shown sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, the AAO must dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security "may, at any time, for what he [or she] deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the 
approval of any petition approved by him [ or her] under section 204" of the Act. 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board 
of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of 
record at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a 
denial of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of 
proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the 
time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the 
petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 
590. The approval of a visa petition vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a 
Page 4 
visa petition is but a preliminary step in the visa application process. Id. at 589. The beneficiary is 
not, by mere approval of the petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work 
in the United States. 
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 Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 
(Nov. 29, 1991); see also section § 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The term 
"extraordinary ability" refers onl y 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 his 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). 
Page 5 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USC/S, 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. l With respect to the criteria at8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." 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 will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each relevant criterion. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence of at least three of the ten criteria, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Intent to Continue Work in the Area of Expertise 
While counsel is correct that the classification sought does not require a job offer, it is an 
employment-based classification that requires that the alien seek to enter the United States to 
continue working in her area of expertise. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act. It is "by virtue of 
such work" that aliens under this classification will substantially benefit prospectively the United 
States as envisioned under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(iii) of the Act. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). Congress did not intend for aliens of extraordinary ability to immigrate to the United States and 
remain idle. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) sets 
forth the evidence required to show that the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue 
working in her area of expertise. While neither the statute nor the regulations specify that the 
employment must be full-time, minimal hours of employment as a hobby or incidental to the alien's 
primary source of income does not substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
1 Specifically, the court stated 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). 
Page 6 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, he contended that the petitioner "is an excellent 
candidate for the U.S. Olympic of the Women Hockey field team as a coach also in the track and 
field which she coached before if her petition is granted." On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
petitioner "has the intent to coach and participate in tournaments." In of his assertion, 
counsel has submitted: (1) documents showing that team that the 
petitioner has coached, entered the California Cup, an mternatlO held in 
May 2011; (2) pictures relating to the petitioner coaching the East Wild Cats, another Hockey Sports 
Club's team; (3) a copy of the petitioner'S USA Field basic coach . card, valid 
until July 2011; (4) a September 15, 2010 letter from 
~tating that the petitioner has been hired as a coach since 2006 and works with the team Wild 
Cats; (5) a Wide Cats' weekly practice schedule for an unspecified period; (6) an Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS) Miscellaneous Income, Form 1099-MISC, showing that the Hockey Sports Club paid 
the petitioner $7,216.00 in 2009; and (7) documents relating to the petitioner'S educational and 
coaching experience in the former Soviet Union. 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not shown her intent to 
continue working as a player in the sport of field hockey. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Indeed, the record shows that the petitioner has not competed as an athlete since the early 1990s, 
before her arrival in the United States in 1999. 
Similarly, based on the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not shown her 
intent to continue working as a coach in the sport of field hockey. The AAO concurs with the 
director's finding that there is no evidence in the record showing that when the petitioner filed her 
visa petition in 2001, she had any intention to work as a coach. Indeed, there is no evidence showing 
that the petitioner either worked or intended to work as a coach in the United States before 2006, 
five years after she filed the petition and over a year after she filed an Application to Register 
Permanent Resident or Adjust Status (Form 1-485). Moreover, as the director pointed out in the 
September 10, 2010 NOIR, in September 2005, the petitioner signed a Memorandum Record of 
Interview, admitting that she had not worked as a field hockey coach since her arrival to the United 
States in 1999 and stating that she was working as a seamstress. On appeal, the petitioner has 
submitted no evidence that contradicts this admission. 
Furthermore, the director noted in the October 19, 2010 NOR that the petitioner has provided 
inconsistent evidence as to her employment. Specifically, she submitted a September 15, 2010 letter 
from Hockey Sports Club's _ stating that she had begun working as a field hockey 
coach at the Hockey Sport~ yet, the petitioner claimed during a June 25, 2010 
telephone conversation with a USCIS officer that she had begun working at the Hockey Club in 
2009, not 2006. The petitioner has provided inconsistent evidence and "it is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence. Attempts to explain or 
reconcile the conflicting accounts [or evidence], absent competent objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice." Matter of Ha, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Although the 
petitioner has filed a 2009 IRS Miscellaneous Income Form and documents relating to her part-time 
-Page 7 
involvement with the Hockey Sports Club, the petitioner has provided no evidence explaining or 
reconciling the inconsistent evidence on her employment. 
Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, the AAO affirms the director's revocation of the 
approval of the petition on the ground that the petitioner has not shown her intent to continue 
working as a field hockey player or coach in the United States beyond a few hours incidental to her 
main source of income. See subsections (ii) and (iii) of section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
Even if the AAO found that the petitioner intended to work as a field hockey coach, a field hockey 
player and a coach, while certainly sharing knowledge of field hockey, rely on very different sets of 
basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are not the same area of expertise. This 
interpretation has been upheld in Federal Court. In Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 
2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" 
as working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not 
necessarily in any profession in that field. For example, [the petitioner's] 
extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not imply that he also has extraordinary 
ability in all positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, 
umpire or coach. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. The AAO will, in limited cases, 
consider whether coaching is within an athlete's area of expertise where the alien has recent acclaim 
as an athlete. The petitioner in this matter, however, did not have recent acclaim as an athlete, even 
in 2001 when she filed the petition. Thus, she must demonstrate that she satisfies the regulatory 
requirements through achievements as a coach. 
As discussed below, the evidence in the record does not establish that the petitioner meets at least 
three of the ten criteria under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as a coach or even as an 
athlete. As such, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that she is one of the small 
percentage who are at the very top of the sport of field hockey and she has not shown sustained 
national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Thus, had the AAO withdrawn 
the director's basis for revocation, the AAO would have had to remand the matter for a new NOIR 
based on the following issues. 
2 The petitioner does not claim or submit evidence showing that the petitioner meets the regulatory categories of 
evidence not discussed in this decision. 
Page 8 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 c'P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record contains no evidence of awards issued to the petitioner for her coaching ability. When 
counsel initially filed the visa petition on April 13, 2001, he asserted that the petitioner meets the 
prizes or awards for excellence criterion under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), because 
she won a number of tournaments and awards from 1979 to the early 1990s. He submitted evidence 
showing that (1) the Secretary of Tashkent's Regional Committee's "LKSM" of Uzbekistan 
presented to the petitioner a 
Soviet Grass Tournament (2) the President 
presented to the petitioner a Deed Reward in 1983, stating that she had 
won the second place in the "Armenian Society'S DSO for trade-union-Komsomol 
Spring track and field athletic"; (3) the Armenian SSR State Committee for Physical Culture and 
Sports presented to the petitioner a Reward in 1987, stating that she had won the first place in the 
"Armenian Grass Hockey Championship among women teams"; (4) of 
_ presented a Reward in 1988 to the petitioner as "the best player and for active Sport's 
[sic] propaganda among young people of Zellin region"; and (5) the Armenian SSR Committee for 
Physical Culture and Sports presented to the petitioner a Reward in 1989, stating that she had won 
the second place in the "Armenian l2-th Spartakiada of DSO Grass Hockey among women teams." 
Counsel also provided an April 3, 2001 letter from Executive Secretary of Hockey 
Federation of Armenia, stating that the petitioner "participated in Female champions of Republic of 
Armenia, Pemale Champions of Cup Tournaments from 1984 to 1999." He also stated that the 
petitioner had "headed the Female Champions of the First League of USSR from 1986 to 1991 and 
the meetings of Champions of Cup Tournaments from 1986 to 1991." 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's evidence, the AAO finds that she has not met this criterion because 
there is no evidence in the record indicating that any of the awards constitute lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the sport of field hockey. Specifically, 
the petitioner has provided no evidence on the eligibility, nomination or selection process for any of 
the rewards. The petitioner has also provided no evidence on the reputation or prestige of the 
entities that presented the petitioner with the awards. Moreover, the certifications of awards have 
not been properly translated as required under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3), which 
provides that "[a ]ny document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete 
and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the 
foreign language into English." In short, based on the evidence in the record, the AAO cannot find 
that the petitioner has presented documentation of her receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the sport of field hockey. The petitioner has not met 
this criterion as a coach or even as an athlete. See 8 c'P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Page 9 
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). 
On appeal, counsel presents the petitioner's USA Field Hockey basic coach membership card, valid 
from July 2010 to July 2011. This membership postdates the filing of the petition by nine years. 
Although counsel has not specifically claimed that the petitioner is or was a member in associations 
that require outstanding achievements as an athlete under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
in his brief filed in support of the visa petition or the instant appeal, the AAO will discuss this 
criterion based on the evidence in the record, which shows that the tioner was a player in a 
n.u-nn.o>r of field hocke teams. S ly, according to 
Armenia," including 
letter further states that "[t]hese teams have taken part in the first and high league competitions of 
the Soviet Union." Neither the letter nor any other evidence in the record, however, explains the 
meaning of "first and high league competitions." The letter also states that the petitioner "was a 
player of the National team of Armenia ... , in some games she was even the best player," and that 
the petitioner participated in international competitions. 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's evidence, the AAO finds that she has not met this criterion because 
there is no evidence in the record about the selection process for any of the teams to which the 
petitioner was a member, the membership requirements for someone to join the USA Field Hockey 
as a "basic coach" or the reputation or prestige of any of the teams or organizations to which the 
petitioner was or is a member. The petitioner or counsel's assertions that are not supported by 
documentary evidence are not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). In short, the AAO has insufficient evidence to 
find that the petitioner has presented documentation of her 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 the sport of field hockey. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion as a coach or even as an athlete. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii). 
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). 
Although counsel has not specifically asserted that the petitioner meets the published material about 
the alien criterion under the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) in his brief filed in support of 
the visa petition or the instant appeal, the AAO will discuss this criterion based on the evidence in 
the record. Specifically, the petitioner has provided a number of foreign language articles, published 
in Hayastani Physculturnic, between 1979 and 1986, and their English extracts, ranging in length of 
one to three sentences. 
Page 10 
The AAO finds that based on the evidence in the record, the petitioner has not shown that she meets 
this criterion. First, the articles are not translated according to the requirements stated in the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Specifically, the one to three-sentence extracts are not full 
English translations and none of the extracts were accompanied by the required certification of 
translation. 
Second, as the AAO has not been provided with the full translation of any of the articles, it cannot 
conclude that any of the articles are about the petitioner. There are six extracts that contain three 
English sentences, the lengthiest of any other extracts. These six extracts are of (1) a 1985 article, 
entitled "Protection of Position of Champion," (2) a 1985 article, entitled "Four Marks as Well," (3) 
a 1985 article, entitled "Strengthening the Positions," (4) a 1986 article, entitled "Hockey on the 
Grass," (5) a 1980 article that does not have a title in English, and (6) a 1979 article, entitled "Good 
Premise." One of the extracts of these articles, the extract of the 1979 article, does not mention the 
petitioner's name. The other five extracts mention the petitioner's name only once. The extracts are 
therefore insufficient to sho.w that the articles are about the petitioner, relating to her work in the 
sport of field hockey. 
Third, the articles were published in a foreign language publication, and 
the petitioner has not shown is a professional or a major trade 
publication or it constitutes other major media. There is no evidence in the record showing what 
type of publication was when the articles were published, or the readership 
of the publication during the same 
Fourth, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the petitioner must include the 
author of each article. The petitioner has included the author for none of the articles. 
Finally, as suggested by the use of the plural in the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the petitioner must show that more than one professional or major trade 
publication or other major media published material about her relating to her work in the sport of 
field hockey. The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b )(1) of the Act. As such, even if the AAO were to conclude 
that the extracts of articles published . published material about 
the petitioner in one professional or major n or major media, the AAO cannot 
find that the petitioner had presented published material in another professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. 
In short, the AAO has insufficient evidence to find that the petitioner has presented published 
material about her in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to her 
work in the sport of field hockey as a coach or even as an athlete. The petitioner has not met this 
criterion as a coach or even as an athlete. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Page 11 
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). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, he contended that the petitioner meets the participation 
as a judge criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv), because the petitioner 
participated as a referee for two events in 1998. To corroborate this assertion, the petitioner filed a 
March 13, 2011 certificate from the Armenian Athletic Federation, certifying that the petitioner 
"participated as a referee in 'Garnik Ghukasyan Memorial' (16.05.l998) and National Outdoor 
Championships (26-27.09.1998) on behalf of the Armenian Athletic Federation." 
Notwithstanding this evidence, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met this criterion, because 
there is no evidence in the record on either the "Garnik Ghukasyan Memorial" or the "National 
Outdoor Champions." Specifically, based on the evidence the petitioner has submitted, the AAO 
cannot conclude that either of the two events was a field hockey event. Moreover, as the petitioner 
has not provided evidence relating to her role as a referee, the AAO cannot conclude that the role of 
a referee in either events is the same or substantially similar to that of a judge. 
In short, the AAO has insufficient evidence to find that the petitioner has presented evidence of her 
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 petitioner has not met this 
criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Although counsel has not specifically claimed that the petitioner meets the leading or critical role 
criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) in his brief filed in support of the visa 
petition or the instant appeal, the AAO will discuss this criterion based on the evidence in the record. 
~ly, the petitioner has provided an undated letter from 
_ stating that the petitioner was a member of the Armeman team, 
in international tions and who had been named the best player in some games. 
that 
September 1, arch 31, 1999. Counsel has also submitted documents relating to the 
petitioner's participation and results in competitions, and filed evidence that the petitioner has been 
employed as a coach for the Hockey Sports Club in California since 2006, well after the petitioner 
filed the instant petition. 
Notwithstanding the evidence provided, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met this criterion, 
because there is no evidence in the record showing that a national team player who had been named 
the best player in some competitions constitutes someone who had performed a leading or critical 
role for the team. The record also lacks evidence showing that the Armenian field hockey national 
Page 12 
team is an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. Specifically, the 
petitioner has not provided any information on the selection process or the reputation or prestige of 
the national team, such that it could be considered as having a distinguished reputation. The AAO 
will not infer such a reputation from the inclusion of the word "national" in the name of the team; it 
is the petitioner's burden to meet each of the evidentiary requirements within a criterion. Pinally, 
her role on these teams was as an athlete, not a coach, the area in which she claimed she would 
work. 
The record also contains no evidence as to how the petitioner's role as a coach at the Youth and 
Junior Athletics Sport School fit within the overall hierarchy of the school such that it could be 
considered a leading role or how she contributed to the overall success of the school such that she 
could be said to have played a critical role for the school as a whole. The record also lacks evidence 
establishing the reputation of the school. Once again, the AAO will not infer the reputation of the 
school from the inclusion of "Olympic Reserve" in the name of the school. 
In addition, although the petitioner has been a coach for the Hockey Sports Club in California since 
2006, the petitioner must establish her eligibility as of the date of filing in 2001. See 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The evidence 
does not establish the number of coaches the Hockey Sports Club has hired or the hierarchy of the 
organization. As such, the AAO lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that the petitioner has 
performed either a leading or critical role in the organization. Moreover, the record does not 
establish that the Hockey Sports Club is an organization or establishment with a distinguished 
reputation. 
Pinally, as suggested by the use of the plural in the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner must show that she has performed a leading or critical role for 
more than one organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. The use of the 
plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. Section 
203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. The petitioner has not made such a showing. 
In short, the AAO has insufficient evidence to find that the petitioner has performed in a leading or 
critical role as a coach or even as an athlete for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
C. Summary 
Pirst, the petitioner has failed to establish through clear evidence her intent to continue to work as a 
field hockey player or coach in the United States, as required under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). Second, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
three types of evidence either as a coach or even as an athlete, as required under the regulation at 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Page 13 
III. CONCLUSION 
The AAO affirms the director's revocation of the approval of the petition on the ground that the 
petitioner has not shown her intent to continue to work in the area of expertise in the United States. 
Moreover, the AAO concludes that the documentation the petitioner has submitted in support of a 
claim of extraordinary ability does not clearly demonstrate that she 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. While the AAO concludes that the evidence of the petitioner's achievements, much of 
which predates the filing of the petition by several years, 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 in 2001, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination. 3 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)(1)(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. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Sollane v. 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 CF.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,2003); 8 CF.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 CF.R. § 103. 1 (f)(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).