dismissed EB-1A Case: Figure Skating

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 15, 2023 In Re: 27463551 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a figure skating coach, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those 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 of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that she had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. We 
dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and 
reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C .F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant motions that satisfy 
these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 I&N 
Dec . 464, 4 73 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits a copy of a January 2022 article from Zippia, "Can I coach 
without a degree?," which reads, in part: "Yes, you can coach without a degree. While you will not 
be teaching at a school, you can coach non-school-related sports and other lifestyle activities. There 
are many different types ofprofessional coaches, from sports to life to career coaches - most of which 
you can do without a college degree." Citing this information, the Petitioner states: 
[The Petitioner] has obtained a coaching position at a sports school that . .. requires a 
professional diploma in physical education in addition to skating abilities. Therefore, 
[the Petitioner] is part of the small percentage of figure skating coaches who possess a 
professional diploma in physical education, as not all figure skating coaches have 
obtained such a diploma. According to the International Skating Union's coaching 
requirements, only about 10% of figure skating coaches hold a professional diploma in 
physical education. 
The above information places the Petitioner in a minority among skating coaches, but a relevant 
academic degree does not fulfill any of the ten initial criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and it does not 
place degree holders among a "small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor" as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Zippia article lacks an author's attribution, and 
Zippia appears to be a website specializing in career information and advice, rather than figure skating 
or athletic coaching. The a1iicle indicates that coaching jobs "at a school" do require a degree. 
Therefore, among skating coaches at schools, the Petitioner's degree appears to amount to a required 
credential rather than an indicator of extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim. 
The printout from Zippia does not provide new facts that would support a determination of eligibility 
for the benefit the Petitioner seeks. Therefore, the printout does not show proper cause for reopening 
the proceeding. 
We now tum to the second document submitted on motion. The Petitioner's initial submission 
included a translated letter from the executive director of the Figure Skating Federation of thel,_____. 
~--~--__,..... After the Petitioner submitted that letter, the Director informed the Petitioner, in a 
request for evidence (RFE), that the translator's certification was deficient. The Director listed the 
requirements for such certification, found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The Petitioner's response to the 
RFE included compliant certifications for newly submitted documents, but not for the previously 
submitted translations. 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we stated that the lack of compliant certifications reduced the 
evidentiary weight of the affected translations. The Petitioner now submits a new translation 
certificate for the letter from thd IThe Director's RFE afforded the Petitioner the opportunity 
to address the deficiency in the translation certification. The Petitioner did not overcome the 
deficiency at that time. The submission of the new certification at this late date does not show proper 
cause to reopen the proceeding. When a petitioner responds to an RFE, all requested materials must 
be submitted together at one time. Submission of only some of the requested evidence will be 
considered a request for a decision on the record. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(ll). Cf Matter ofSoriano, 
19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (holding that evidence will not be considered on appeal when the 
affected party was previously put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity 
to provide it). We will further discuss the information in thel Iletter below, in the context of 
the motion to reconsider. 
Because the new materials submitted on motion do not show proper cause for reopening, we will 
dismiss the motion to reopen. 
We will now address the motion to reconsider. In our appellate decision, we stated: "The Petitioner has 
performed as a figure skating competitor and intends to work as a coach and choreographer for figure 
skaters. She attained her foreign bachelor's degree in physical education and began coaching one year 
after receiving her degree." On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the above "statement is not entirely 
accurate," because the Petitioner "has over 10 years of coaching experience, which she began 
2 
immediately after her figure skating career. Additionally, she has provided her resume in the initial filing, 
which likely includes her coaching experience." The quoted passage from our appellate decision was a 
brief summary of the Petitioner's career, rather than a basis for dismissal of the appeal. Neither the length 
of the Petitioner's experience nor the timing of her degree are relevant criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), nor do they inherently demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim as required 
by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
As noted in our prior decision, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth ten criteria, listing types 
of evidence that could, subject to a final merits determination, help to establish extraordinary ability. The 
Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied seven of these crite1ia. We agreed with the Director that the 
Petitioner had satisfied only one of them, relating to judging the work of others. 
On motion, the Petitioner addresses two of the regulatory criteria, discussed below. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classtfication 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 the denial notice, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's membership in the I I but 
concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the membership meets the regulatory requirements: 
The evidence did not show that the memberships require outstanding achievements, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. The beneficiary, for example, did 
not provide the bylaws or other membership requirements to show that outstanding 
achievements are a condition of membership, and that the judging of membership is 
comprised of recognized national or international experts. Here, the beneficiary's 
evidence is insufficient to meet the regulat01y requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserted that she had established the reputations of thel IPresidium 
members who judge candidates for membership, and that she had established the importance of her 
activities. In dismissing the appeal, we concluded that the Petitioner did "not remedy the lack of material 
relating to membership requirements." 
On motion, as noted above, the Petitioner resubmits a letter from the executive director of the I , I 
with a new translation certification. The Petitioner does not, however, establish that we erred in our prior 
decision. The letter states that membership "requires outstanding achievements evaluated by recognized 
national or international experts," and that thel !accepted the Petitioner into membersh~ 
general, unanimous decision of all 7 members of the Presidium of the Federation present." TheL___J 
is a regional association, rather than a national or international one, and the Petitioner does not establish 
that Presidium membership requires recognition beyond the local vicinity ofl I Also, the letter 
does not cite to any bylaws or other primary evidence to corroborate the assertion that thel Irequires 
outstanding achievement as a condition for admission to membership. The minutes of the July 2020 
Presidium meeting, also in the Petitioner's initial submission, indicate that three individuals were denied 
membership because of insufficient information concerning their "activities in thel I-" The 
document does not say what sort of"activities" are necessary to qualify for membership. 
3 
The Petitioner has not shown that we erred in concluding that she had not satisfied this criterion. 
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). 
The Petitioner claimed to satisfy this criterion because she wrote an article in championat.com with the 
translated title "Why should you sta1t skating? 7 good reasons from the coach." In the denial notice, the 
Director noted the lack ofa complete English translation, and stated that the Petitioner had not established 
"that championat.com qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other fo1m of major 
media." In our dismissal of the appeal, we stated: 
As the Petitioner operates outside of academia, she should demonstrate the article was 
written for learned persons in the field. The article does not meet this requirement as it 
appears intended for those who do not compete in her athletic field, and she offers no 
arguments to the contrary. As the Petitioner has not shown this evidence qualifies as a 
scholarly article, it would serve no purpose to evaluate whether it appeared in a qualifying 
publication. 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that she has established that championat.com is a major publication. As 
we observed in our decision, we need not consider that question until the Petitioner establishes that her 
article is scholarly. Outside of academia, we consider a "scholarly article" to be written for learned 
persons in that field. "Learned" is defined as "having or demonstrating profound knowledge or 
scholarship." Learned persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a field. See generally 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Petitioner asserts, on motion: 
The article in question is composed of 7 distinct sections that highlight the physical 
education benefits of figure skating. It should be noted that these sections are not based 
on abstract observations or solely on [the Petitioner's] personal opinion, but rather reflect 
the profound knowledge and expertise that she has gained through her experiences in the 
field, as well as her formal education in Physical Education at the university level. 
The definition of a scholarly publication rests on the knowledge and expertise of the intended readers, 
rather than that of the author. The Petitioner has not shown that her article is a scholarly effort aimed at 
such readers. Rather, the translated introductory fragment of the article reads, in part: "Like any physical 
activity, ice skating develops and strengthens muscles that are not involved in everyday life. And also, 
of course, burns calories. But that's not all. I will tell you about seven reasons that will convince you to 
get up on skates this winter." The Petitioner had previously submitted a letter from another figure skater, 
who stated that the purpose of the article was to "make a non-skater start to learn to skate." 
The Petitioner has not established that she wrote a scholarly article for a specialized readership, as 
opposed to a popular article for a general readership. Therefore, she has not shown proper cause for 
reconsideration. 
4 
Beyond the above arguments, the Petitioner states that she has no desire to return to her native Russia, 
due to factors such as her disagreement with that country's war with Ukraine. We do not question the 
depth or sincerity of the Petitioner's beliefs in this regard, but the classification she seeks in this 
proceeding is contingent on sustained national and international acclaim, which she has not established. 
In our prior decision, we granted one of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and reserved discussion 
on two others. If the Petitioner had satisfied both of the reserved criteria, then the discussion would have 
proceeded to a final merits determination, but such a dete1mination would not have resulted in approval 
of the petition. The Petitioner's evidence shows that she is a knowledgeable and experienced skater and 
coach, but the record does not show that she has attained sustained national or international acclaim as 
required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, and it does not show that she has risen to the very top of 
her field as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Nevertheless, we will briefly discuss here one ofthe two reserved criteria, to show that we and the Director 
did not eIT by omitting the final merits determination. 
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 classtfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Initially, the Petitioner claimed several instances ofpublished material. In response to the RFE, however, 
she narrowed her claim to an appearance on Utro Rossii on the Russia 1 television network. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner had not established that she had appeared in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. On appeal, the Petitioner asserted that she had previously submitted 
evidence showing that Russia 1 is a major television channel in Russia. 
The published material should be about the person. The person and the person's work need not be the 
only subject of the material, but the material should include a substantial discussion of the person's work 
in the field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F .2 appendix. The translated transcript does 
not indicate that the television segment on Russia 1 was about the Petitioner, relating to her work in the 
field. Rather, the transcript indicates that the focus of the piece was children learning to skate. The piece 
included footage of the Petitioner teaching a group of children, and talking to a reporter about changing 
attitudes in the field. The Petitioner briefly appeared in this television segment, but it is not about her and 
her work in the field. Rather, she appears to have been shown as a representative example of a skating 
teacher, while the reporter discussed general statistics and information rather than the Petitioner's career 
or recognition. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established 
that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued 
our decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5