dismissed EB-1A Case: Figure Skating

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Adm inistrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave. , N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JUL 3 1 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision . The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~1()~Adncl/ 
(' Ron Rosenberg 
"" Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director , Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. 1 The director determined that the petitioner had not met the 
requisite criteria for classification as an alien extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
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 
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). 
1 
According to information in the petitioner 's passport from the People's Republic of China, the petitioner was last 
admitted to the United States on February 20, 2013 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010 , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (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 our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion? With 
respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
the court concluded that while users 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." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our 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 we 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 we concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.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 matter, we will review the evidence under the 
plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria , the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. INTENT TO CONTINUE WORK IN THE AREA OF EXPERTISE IN THE U.S. 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in her area of expertise 
in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act,; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(5). On the Form 
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner left blank her "Occupation" in Part 5 and 
her "Job Title" in Part 6, "Basic Information About the Proposed Employment." 
In a May 20, 2013 letter accompanying the petition, the petitioner stated: 
[The petitioner] won ral 
competed in the 
[the] top 
retiring from 
skating. 
on behalf of and ranked within 
.... After 
she devoted herself to coaching youth athletes in figure 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantiv e or evidentiary requir ements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has been serving as a coach at the prestigious 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a March 8, 2013 certification stating "that she worked at [the] 
_ _ during the term from 2001 to the beginning of 2013." The 
petitioner also submitted documentation indicating that she coached for the 
during the 1990s. In response to the director 's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an 
August 1, 20 13 letter from counsel asserting that the petitioner "is an alien of extraordinary ability 
intending to work as a figure skating coach." Lastly, the petitioner maintains throughout the 
appellate brief that she qualifies for the classification sought as a figure skating coach. 
Although the petitioner submitted documentation of her athletic accomplishments as an ice dancer 
from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner 
has competed nationally or internationally as an ice dancer or figure skater since that time period. 
Although a figure skating coach and a competitive ice dancer may share knowledge of the sport, the 
two 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. J.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, Lee'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. 
!d. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. The petitioner presently works as a 
figure skating coach, and there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that she intends to 
compete regularly as an ice dancer or figure skater in sporting events in the United States. It is 
possible for an individual to have extraordinary ability in more than one field, such as a figure 
skating coach and an ice dancing competitor , but the petitioner must demonstrate "by clear evidence 
that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). In this matter, there is no evidence establishing that the petitioner intends to continue 
working in the United States as a competitive ice dancer or figure skater. Accordingly, the petitioner 
must satisfy the statutory requirement at section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act as well as the regulatory 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3) through her achievements as a coach. 
The petitioner asserts on appeal that USCIS failed "to distinguish the instant case from Lee v. I.N.S., 
and thus applied the wrong standard in the instant case." The petitioner points out that Lee was a 
baseball catcher who participated in a team sport, whereas the petitioner competed in the 
"individual" sport of figure skating. The petitioner further states: 
In individual sports, the coach and athlete share the same goal and set of skills to horn (sic) the 
athlete's skills in said sports. There is no responsibility on the coach to take the team into 
account. The coach's role is to help the athlete reflect on his/her moves and improve. The 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
athlete's role is also to improve the moves and excel. They rely on the same set of basic skills, 
namely understanding the difficulties of different moves and how to execute them successfully. 
The petitioner's evidence, however, does not show that she competed in an individual sport. Instead, 
the submitted awards and published material from the petitioner's career as an ice dancer show that she 
competed with a male skating partner named Moreover, the petitioner has not established 
that the coaching skills which she points to above are unique to individual sports. For instance, the 
petitioner has not shown that baseball, football, basketball, soccer, or hockey coaches do not help their 
players "reflect on [their] moves and improve." Additionally, the petitioner has not established that 
"understanding the difficulties of different moves and how to execute them successfully" are skill sets 
that differentiate coaches of individual sports from those who coach team sports. 
The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that a figure skating coach and a competitive ice dancer are 
the same area of expertise. 
The petitioner contends that "[f]rom previous USers decisions, it is clear that athletes in individual 
sports are treated differently from athletes in team sports." The petitioner's appellate brief points to 
three non-precedent decisions from the 1990s in which users approved petitions for athletes who 
became coaches in the "individual" sports of martial arts, fencing, and diving. The petitioner then 
points to two non-precedent decisions from the 1990s in which the AAO dismissed appeals for athletes 
who became coaches in the team sports of soccer and baseball. The petitioner, however, has not 
established that the success she achieved as an ice skating competitor was in an individual sport 
(rather than as part of an ice dancing pair) or that the facts of the instant petition are similar to those 
in the three unpublished favorable decisions. Each petition is a separate proceeding with a separate 
record. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.8(d). In making a determination of statutory eligibility, users is limited 
to the information contained in the record of proceeding. See 8 e.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). Although 
AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USeiS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. See 8 e.F.R. § 103.3(c). Moreover, there is no 
statute, regulation, case law, or users policy for coaches seeking extraordinary ability classification 
that differentiates between individual sports and team sports in determining eligibility for the 
classification sought. 
The petitioner further states that the present matter is distinguishable from Lee v. I.N.S. in that she 
"has years of experience coaching at high levels while Lee did not have any experience as a coach 
before seeking entry as a coach." While there exists a nexus between competing and coaching in a 
given sport, to assume that every extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, would 
be too speculative. To resolve this issue, a balanced approach is appropriate when reviewing the 
evidence of record. Specifically, in a case where an individual has achieved recent national or 
international acclaim as a competitive athlete and has sustained that acclaim in training top 
competitors at a national level, the totality of the evidence is probative of establishing an overall 
pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that the petitioner can demonstrate that 
coaching is within her area of expertise. However, as the petitioner in the present matter has had an 
extended period of time lasting more than two decades to establish her reputation as a figure skating 
coach beyond the years in which she last competed as an ice dancer in the early 1990s, the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
must meet the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.P.R . § 204.5(h)(3) based on her 
accomplishments as a coach. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(5) states, in part: 
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. 
The petitioner has not submitted any of the preceding types of evidence required by the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(5). For this reason alone, the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the 
benefit sought and the petition must be denied. 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that she received nationally and internationally 
recognized awards for excellence in competitive ice dancing during the 1990s. As previously 
discussed, the petitioner retired from ice dancing competition in the early 1990s and has coached 
since that time. The petitioner's "field of endeavor" for which classification is sought, therefore, is 
coaching. There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner seeks to work in the United States as a 
competitive ice dancer. Awards resulting from the petitioner's success as a competitive athlete cannot 
be considered evidence of her national or international recognition as a coach. Again, the statute and 
regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in her area of expertise in the United 
States. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act,; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(5). See also Lee v. I.N.S., 237 
F. Supp. 2d at 914. Accordingly, awards won by the petitioner as a competitive athlete in the 1980s 
and early 1990s do not meet the elements of this regulatory criterion for purposes of establishing her 
extraordinary ability as a coach. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "There exists no special award for figure skating coaching. The way 
for coaches to receive nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards is through their students 
in competition." USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney 
3 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. Therefore, we have not considered whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
General of the United States , 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The petitioner has not 
established that awards for 
figure skating coaches do not exist. 4 
The petitioner submitted a "Recommendation Letter" from stating the petitioner was her 
coach and and her partner won third place in the 
after two years of training with the petitioner. The letter from Ms. does not 
include an address , a telephone number, or any other information through which she can be 
contacted. The lack of proper contact information as a means for verifying Ms. claims 
diminishes the reliability of her letter. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
submitted a letter from District Manager of the _ 
asserting that the petitioner's students have won "first, second, and third places in the 
national or provisional [sic] level of competitions ." The petitioner, however, failed to submit evidence 
showing Ms. third place award or the petitioner 's 
students' first, second, and third place awards in national or provincial 
competitions. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sotfici, 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)) . Absent documentation that primary and secondary evidence of the awards are either not 
available or nonexistent, the preceding letters are not probative as evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). 
Regardless, awards received by the petitioner's skaters in various athletic competitions do not 
constitute her receipt of those awards. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires documentation of "the alien's receipt" of nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Prizes or awards individuals 
other than the petitioner herself have received do not meet the plain language requirements of the 
regulation. Nevertheless, as this decision discusses below, awards received by a petitioner's students 
are probative evidence under the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). As there is no 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has received nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in coaching, the petitioner has not established that she meets the 
plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
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 . 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish her eligibility. On appeal , the petitioner does not contest the director ' s 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. When an appellant fails to offer an 
argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. 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 
4 
For example , "[e]very year, U.S. Figure Skating and the Professional Skaters Association (PSA) recogniz e exceptional 
coaching achievement through the annual coaching awards. This is a function of the U.S. Figure Skating Coaches 
Committee and the PSA Board of Directors ." See http://www.usfsa.org/content/Aw ard%20Crit eria.pdf, accessed on 
April17, 2014, copy incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims abandoned when not raised on appeal to the AAO). 
According! y, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
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. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The petitioner, therefore, has abandoned this issue. 
Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly , the petitioner has 
not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
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. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence 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." A review of the petitioner 's 
evidence, however, does not reflect that she submitted documentation that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) for the reasons outlined below. 
The petitioner submitted a March 8, 2013 certification stating '"that she worked at 
during the term from 2001 to the beginning of 2013." In addition, the petitioner 
submitted a webpage for the showing photographs of the 
coaching staff and stating that the club's coaches hold titles in national, Asian, international, and 
world championships. The petitioner also submitted a "Recommendation Letter" from 
stating: "[The petitioner] has been a diligent and responsible coach to me. She would show me almost 
each move by doing it herself, and judge and critique my moves." Again, the lack of proper contact 
information for Ms. diminishes the reliability of her letter. 
Along with Ms. letter, the petitioner submitted an 
_ _ 
_ roster identifying Ms. as one of nine ice 
dancing "Judges" for the competition. The petitioner's name, however, does not appear on the roster 
of official judges. There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner has participated as 
a judge of the work of others in the same manner as Ms. Serving as a coach where part of 
one's job duties includes evaluating skaters does not equate to participation as a judge of the work of 
others in the field . Providing instruction and training to athletes is not tantamount to deciding the 
outcome of a contest or competition. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Informal instances of evaluating one's own athletes as a coach do not meet the 
elements of this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter fro 
District Manager of the stating: 
fThe petitioner] has been the Figure Skating Professional Head Coach of our 
During her employment, she is mainly responsible for coaching members, giving 
professional advice, design [sic] moves for competition, supervising competition teams, etc. 
She also manages, supervises, coaches, examines and reviews the figure skating coach staff. 
Supervising and internally reviewing the performance of club members and coaching staff at 
does not equate to participation as a judge of the work of others in the 
field. Again, the phrase "participation ... as a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read to include every informal instance of evaluating club 
members or others on the same coaching staff. Furthermore, the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires "[e]vidence ofthe alien's participation ... as ajudge ofthe work of others." Rather 
than submitting copies of staff reviews showing the petitioner's assessments of the other coaches, 
the petitioner instead submitted a letter from Mr. briefly mentioning the petitioner's various 
job duties. There is no documentary evidence showing the petitioner's specific assessments and the 
names of those she evaluated. As previously discussed, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Moreover, 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). In this instance, the record does not 
include primary evidence demonstrating the petitioner's participation as a judge. Absent 
documentation that primary and secondary evidence of the petitioner's judging is either not available or 
nonexistent, the preceding letter cannot be relied upon as evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. 
The petitioner, therefore, abandoned this issue. Sepulveda , 
401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted a news report and photographs from her ice skating demonstrations and 
competitions in the 1980s. There is no evidence demonstrating, however, that the petitioner seeks to 
work in the United States as an ice dancer or figure skater. Again, the statute and regulations require 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
that the petitioner seeks to continue work in her area of expertise in the United States. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(5). See also Lee v. 
I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. Accordingly, the petitioner's ice skating performances and 
demonstrations from the 1980s do not meet this regulatory criterion for purposes of establishing her 
extraordinary ability as a coach. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
with 
As head coach a 
by supervising the staff coaches. 
co-hosted the popular TV show 
in 2007. . 
. . The show invited 
to join the show. 
* * * 
the petitioner participated in showcases 
The petitioner points to the letter from which states that the petitioner "is responsible for 
coaching members, giving professional advice, design [sic] moves for competition, supervising 
competition teams, etc. She also manages, supervises, coaches, examines and reviews the figure 
skating coach staff." The preceding duties, however, do not constitute display of the petitioner's work 
in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In addition, the petitioner submits photographs that she alleges are from the 
television show, but the petitioner is not identified as a participant in any of the photographs. Moreover, 
there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner was among the 
who received an invitation to join the show. The petitioner also submits 
a ' ' webpage and an accompanying English language translation that states: 
made the reality show together with Twenty-four top 
coaches from and twenty-four hot stars joined [the] show and competed for six 
months ." Although the translator of the ' ' webpage states that the English language 
translation of the webpage 's content "is an accurate translation of the text on the 
website," there is no supporting documentary evidence demonstrating that 
is part of the falls under the 
petitioner's coaching supervision. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Even if the petitioner were to submit evidence establishing that is part of 
the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "evidence of the 
display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." The petitioner's field, 
however, is in athletics rather than the arts. Further, although the ice skaters who appeared on the 
show performed their work, there is no evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner 's work was on display. Regardless, the interpretation that 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is 
limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has been upheld by a federal district court. See Negro-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an 
interpretation that performances by a performing artist do not fall under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has not created tangible pieces of art 
that were on display at exhibitions or showcases, she has not submitted qualifying evidence that 
meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
In light of the above , the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In general, a leading role is demonstrated by evidence of where the petitioner fits within the hierarchy 
and duties of an organization or establishment while a critical role is demonstrated by evidence of the 
petitioner's contributions to the organization or establishment. 
Although the petitioner previously relied on her roles as a skater, on appeal, the petitioner focuses on 
her role for the The petitioner points to the letter from 
describing the petitioner's responsibilities as head coach and asserting that the petitioner's students have 
won "first, second, and third places in the national or provisional [sic] level of competitions." The 
petitioner, however, did not submit evidence of the petitioner's students' 
first, second, and third place awards in national or provincial competitions. Again, going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Regardless, the letter from 
is sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner has performed in a leading role as head coach for 
the 
With regard to the reputation of and the 
who states: --------------' the petitioner points to the letter from 
I am the District Manager of 
Ltd, which is a I-Jrofessional skating management company. Its subsidiary companies included 
other skating-related organizations. They aim to advertise and promote skating, to iscover 
and coach extraordinary talented skaters, and they have created motivations from people. The 
top skating ice rink operated by our subsidiary is the most influential and competitive ice­
rink facility in the country. Since the development in 1999, the company has its branches in 
fourteen cities, including 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a webpage for the stating 
that the club's coaches hold titles in national , Asian, international, and world championships. The 
promotional assertions from the club's website and its District Manager, however, are not sufficient 
to demonstrate that the has a distinguished reputation. USCIS 
need not rely on self-promotional material. Cf Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (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's appellate submission 
includes photographs from the but 
there is no objective documentary evidence showing that the club has earned a distinguished 
reputation. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence 
that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished "organizations or 
establishments" in the plural. The 
use of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. 
When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as 
when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of 
"letter(s)." Thus, we can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a 
different context , federal courts have upheld US CIS' ability to interpret significance from whether 
the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 
(RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at 
* 1, * 10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" 
bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree 
rather than a combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner were to submit 
objective documentary evidence demonstrating that has a 
distinguished reputation, which she has not, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence of a leading or critical role for more than one distinguished 
organization or establishment. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
IV. 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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had 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[ir] 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Pag e 13 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we conclude 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, we 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 three categories of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act and 
the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 
670 F.3d at 741; Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145; Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 Appellate review for employment-based petitions is on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th 
Cir. 2012); Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). In any 
future proceeding, the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination is the office that made this decision, the most 
recent in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS 
Delegation Numb er 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.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).