dismissed EB-1A Case: Gymnastics Coach

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 3 2@9 
SRC 09 059 5 1803 
IN RE: 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. 4 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
L!/J/ ~~11 i r 1- 
[" Perry Rhew 
7,' Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on April 28, 2009, and 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
6 204.5(h)(3). 
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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2), The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on December 16, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as gymnastics coach. Aside from her activities as a gymnastics coach, the 
record includes evidence showing that the petitioner competed in gymnastic tournaments fiom the 
late 1980s to 1999. However, according to a letter, dated December 1 1, 2008, fiom the petitioner 
submitted with Form 1-140 and Part 6 of Form 1-140, "Basic information about the proposed 
employment," the petitioner is seeking work in the United States as a gymnastics coach. Subsequent 
to 1999, there is no evidence indicating that the petitioner, age 34 at the time of filing, has remained 
active as a gymnastics competitor at the national or international level. The statute and regulations 
require the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained and that she seeks to continue 
work in her area of expertise in the United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. $8 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. $8 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a gymnastics 
competitor and an instructor certainly share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different 
sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and gymnastics instruction 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. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim through 
achievements as a gymnastics competitor subsequent to 1999 or that she intends to compete here in 
the United States. Further, the evidence is clear that the beneficiary intends to work as a gymnastics 
instructor. While the petitioner's athletic accomplishments as a gymnastics competitor are not 
completely irrelevant and will be given some consideration, ultimately she must satisfy the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) through her achievements as a gymnastics instructor and coach. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3).' 
I The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on her position as the "team leader 
coach" of 
 - - 
 who are all members of the 
team that participated in the 
 and 
the - in Anaheim, CA in 2003. In addition, the petitioner states that she was 
the co-coach of lo placed 8" in at the 2002 - 5" 
in beam at the 2002 51h place in floor exercise at the 2003 World Cup, and 
qualified and competed for Bulgaria at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece. The petitioner also 
submitted the following: 
I. Diploma from the ndicating that the petitioner 
participated as a team leader from April 18-2 1,2002; 
2. Biography and competition results from :- 
3. Letter, dated May 20,2009, from - 
4. Letter, dated May 19,2009, from - 
The submitted documentation fails to establish that the petitioner, or an athlete coached by the 
petitioner, has received nationally or internationally recognized rizes or awards for excellence. 
Based on the submitted documentation, the highest finish for was sth place at 
the 2002 We do not consider two fifth place finishes of 
athletes coached by the petitioner to be at a level of expertise indicating that the petitioner is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of her field of endeavor. Similarly, while 
qualikng and competing at the 2004 Olympics is a noted accomplishment, the petitioner failed to 
establish that -nedaled at those Olympics. 
Notwithstanding the above, while the letter from -ndicates that the petitioner 
worked with the record fails to reflect that 
she coached these individuals, the petitioner won any nationally or internationally awards or prizes 
based on her coaching of these individuals, or thesk individuals won nationalli or internati6nally 
awards or vrizes. Moreover. the covv of the divloma submitted bv the vetitioner reflects that she 
L d 
participated as a team leader at the 2002 
 No other 
documentation was submitted by the petitioner establishing her coaching experience witKthe above- 
mentioned individuals. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). We also note that the petitioner submitted a letter of recommendation from m 
former head coach of the - men's team, which indicated that 
the petitioner was a gymnastics coach in the sports club, "Levski," and a gymnastics coach for the 
- - 
junior 
 team. kegardless, the petitioner failed to establish that her 
coaching abilities for either of these local or junior organizations garnered any nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
Page 5 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 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 Bulgarian ~ational team, we will also consider that membership under this criterion. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
Regarding the letters, they indicate that the petitioner is currently a coach at the 1- 
Center, which is affiliated with USA Gymnastics. The petitioner also submitted a membership card 
from USA Gymnastics indicating that the petitioner is a bbprofessional member." However, the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing the requirements for professional 
membership with USA Gymnastics. Furthermore, the letter from also indicates 
"[tlhe fact that she worked with the in Bulgaria is precisely why she has the specific 
training to coach our younger girls." The record reflects that the petitioner's previous and current 
coaching abilities have been limited to younger girls and junior teams. 
In general for athletics, being a member of a national team competing at nationally and 
internationally recognized tournaments and championships may satisfy the requirements for this 
criterion. For example, membership on a national gymnastics team competing at the Olympics 
would generally demonstrate the outstanding achievement required to sustain national or 
international acclaim. However, in this case, the petitioner has claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on the participation as a team leader of a junior team in Bulgaria and current coach at a 
gymnastics training facility for younger girls. We find that membership with junior teams or local 
clubs does not indicate that the petitioner is a member of any organization that requires outstanding 
achievement as judged by recognized national or international experts and is not indicative of the 
petitioner as "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
See 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this 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. 
Page 6 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
The director concluded that the submitted documents were about the petitioner's performance as a 
gymnast and not as a coach. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a list of 11 articles from 
- - 
www.intl~~mnast.com consisting of the-title, date; and a brief summary mentioning the names of 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[s]uch evidence shall include the title, date, 
and author of the material, and any necessary translation." The list of articles submitted by the 
petitioner does not contain the authors of the articles as required under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Further, the petitioner failed to submit full articles for each of the 11 articles; instead the petitioner 
submitted summations for 11 of the articles. In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the 
petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. See Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 
(BIA 1966). Because the petitioner failed to comply with 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the AAO 
cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the evidence is 
not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
The petitioner also submitted an article entitled, dated AugustJSeptember 
2003, by tating that won the women's all-around titles at the 
Bulgarian championships. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[plublished 
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." The submitted articles are not 
- 
published 'material about the petitioner, but rather about 
 w 
The submitted articles do not mention the petitioner, her abilities as a coach, or how 
her coaching contributed to the success of any of these individuals. In addition, the petitioner failed 
to submit any documentary evidence establishing that any of these publications are professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 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$eld of specijcation for which classijkation is 
sought, 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted credentials indicating that the petitioner served as a judge at the 19' 
005, in Istanbul, Turkey and at the Artistic 
13-14, 2003, in 
President of the 
Federation, dated March 16, 2009, stating that the petitioner successfully passed a course to become a 
national level judge in the national category and international brevet category. also 
indicates that the petitioner served as a judge at the 5" 
"Aphrodite" in 2001, -1 Junior Championshps in December 2003, and the 
19'" Turkey in 2005. 
Page 7 
The petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing the stature and prestige of these 
tournaments and championships, the selection criteria to be a judge, and the talent and caliber of the 
competitors she judged at these tournaments and championships. Further, at least one of these 
tournaments appeared to be a junior championship. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence 
of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, 
depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary 
standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level 
of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). For example, evaluating the work of 
accomplished gymnasts as a member on a national panel of experts is of far greater probative value than 
evaluating the work of junior gymnasts. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjkance in the$eld. 
On appeal, the petitioner refers to the previously mentioned reference letters from and 
states that the petitioner's "contribution will contribute to the 
shortage of gymnastics coaches currently experienced in the United States." -tates 
that "[tlhe techniques for coaching that [the petitioner] used in training me are of great value to me in 
my current coachng position." 
The reference letters fail to identify a specific, original athletic contribution of major significance made 
by the petitioner as a coach in gymnastics. In this case, the reference letters submitted by the 
petitioner are not sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. We note that the above letters are all 
fi-om individuals who have worked or interacted with the petitioner. While such letters can provide 
important details about the petitioner's credentials, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national or 
international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the alien's immediate 
acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Cornrnr. 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal 
contacts in not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of any 
Page 8 
immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence or original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of an individual who has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Without extensive documentation 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout her 
field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contribution of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that her participation as a "team leader coach" of the junior Bulgarian 
National team and personal coach for - serves as evidence of the display of her work 
in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. The petitioner also refers to the previously mentioned 
diploma, letter from letter from 
Magazine. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vii) indicates that it is 
intended for visual artists (such as sculptors and painters) rather than for coaches such as the 
petitioner. In athletics, acclaim is generally established by competing in tournaments and 
championships and most competitions take place in a public forum. The ten criteria in the 
regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. 
The petitioner's and her students' participation in national and international competitions has 
previously been addressed under the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). The petitioner 
failed to establish that her involvement with the junior team and - 
is evidence of her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims: 
[The petitioner] has submitted numerous documents that establish her as a coach who 
stands out in performing leading and critical roles for both the Bulgarian Gymnastics 
Federation and USA Gymnastics. She has also submitted evidence that she has coached 
athletes who have competed for significant national and international awards under her 
tutelage. 
The petitioner does not refer to any specific documents. Further, as previously discussed in several of 
the criteria above, the record is unclear as to the specific position and role the petitioner played with the 
Bulgarian National team, let alone the Bulgarian Gymnastics Federation. In addition, the record fails to 
reflect that the petitioner's current position as coach of junior athletes in a local training center is a 
leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. For example, we would be 
more persuaded if the petitioner was the president or director of USA Gymnastics rather than as a girls 
team head coach at - In this case, the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner does not establish her positions or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of 
"leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. In addition, the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that any of these organizations have a 
distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Finally, we note that the petitioner is currently in 0-1 nonimmigrant visa status. While USCIS has 
approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior 
approval does not preclude USCIS fiom denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if 
similarly phrased, standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied aRer 
CIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 
2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin 
Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time 
reviewing I- 129 nonimmigrant petitions than I- 140 immigrant petitions, some nonimrnigrant 
petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see 
also Texas A&A4 Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding 
that prior approvals do not preclude CIS fiom denying an extension of the original visa based on a 
reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 597. It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS or 
any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 
825 F.2d at 1090. 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
Page 10 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.