dismissed EB-1A Case: Gymnastics

(b)(6)
DATE: SEP 2 4 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation 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)(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:Uwww.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, 
~e~~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which 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)(1)(A) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien of extraordinary 
ability in athletics as a gymnastics coach. Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of 
extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's 
"sustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive documentation " of the alien's 
achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien, as initial evidence, can present evidence of a 
one-tiine achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an 
award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 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. The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish 
eligibility for the exclusive classification sought as a gymnastics coach. 
On July 14, 2014, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), we issued a notice 
advising the petitioner of conflicting biographical information contained in the record. In response to 
the notice, the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to overcome the inconsistencies. 
On appeal. the oetitioner submits a comoleted Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, a "certificate" 
from the outlining the petitioner 's awards as a competitor and 
confirming one year of employment for her "club" team as a coach of junior gymnasts, a job offer letter 
for the part-time position of assistant coach with and a letter from a colleague at 
which attests to three years of employment. In part 3 of the Form I-290B, the petitioner 
asserts that " evidence of a 'one time achievement (that is a major internationally recognized award)' is 
sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability." 
In Part 6 of Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner listed her job title as 
"Gymnastics Coach." In addition, page 1 of the cover letter submitted with the petition states that 
the petitioner "is seeking to come to the United States as a gymnastics coach ." Finally , the initial 
petition included a letter from Dr. Director/Owner of 
which states that they are "in need of a professional gymnastics coach" and "would like ... to offer 
[the petitioner] a position ... upon achieving her immigration status." Thus, the record reflects that 
the petitioner is seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as a coach rather than as a 
competitor. 
The statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained 
and that the petitioner seeks to continue work in her area of expertise in the United States . See 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
sections 203(b)(1)(A)(i) and ·(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a gymnastics coach and a gymnast share knowledge of the sport, the 
two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, coaching gymnasts and competing as a gymnast 
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, 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. 
Based on the petitioner's answers to the questions on Form I-140 and the submitted documentation, 
the record reflects that the petitioner 
intends to work as a gymnastics coach. Ultimately, as stated by 
the director in his decision, the petitioner must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
through her achievements as a gymnastics coach. As such, the evidence submitted by the petitioner 
regarding her achievements as a competitor is not demonstrative of her extraordinary ability as a 
coach. In the present matter, the record does not contain evidence which establishes that the 
petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim through her achievements as a gymnastics 
coach. 
The petitioner also "note[ s ]" on Form I-290B that the director issued his decision without requesting 
any additional evidence. 
While the petitioner is correct, the director's decision cited the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(8)(ii) which states: 
Initial evide nce. If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the benefit 
request or does not demonstrate eligibility, users in its discretion may deny the 
benefit request for lack of initial evidence or for ineligibility or request that the 
missing initial evidence be submitted within a specified period of time as determin ed 
by USCIS . 
While the director's decision acknowledged the submission of a job offer letter for the position of 
gymnastic coach, the decision further stated that, "none of the [submitted] evidence relates to the [] 
[petitioner]' s career as a coach in the field of endeavor of gymnastics." As the petitioner did not 
submit initial evidence to demonstrate that she is a gymnastics coach of extraordinary ability, the 
director was not obligated to issue a request for evidence. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not offer any arguments identifying any error of law or fact in the 
director's analysis. See Desravines v. United States Attorney Gen., No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
435 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned). The petitioner 
does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or point to specific errors in the director's 
analyses of the documentary evidence submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Although the petitioner states on appeal that she is "submitting additional evidence 
addressing the concerns raised in the denial letter," the petitioner does not indicate which of the 
regulatory criteria, if any, the evidence satisfies. Further, a letter confirming one year of employment in 
1989 as a coach and a letter confirming her employment at from 2005 until 2008 do not 
establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of coaching in gymnastics. 
Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that "[a]n officer to whom an appeal 
is taken shall 
summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal." In this matter, the petitioner 
has not identified an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in the director 's decision as a 
proper basis for the appeal. The petitioner ' s appellate submission offers only a general statement 
asserting that the petitioner qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner offers no 
argument that demonstrates error on the part of the director based upon the record that was before 
him and the additional evidence is of no evidentiary value. 
As the petitioner did not contest any of the specific findings of the director and offers no substantive 
basis for the filing of the appeal, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal 
I 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26l&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.