dismissed EB-1A Case: Gymnastics Coaching

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 2 6 2011 
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)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
rerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
, 
• 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center. The director reopened the matter on the petitioner's motion, and denied the petition 
again. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. I The AAO 
reopened the proceeding on its own motion. The AAO will affirm its previous decision. The petition 
will remain denied. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § JJ53(b)(l)(A), as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics.2 The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the beneficiary's requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of her sustained national or international acclaim as a coach. 
At the outset, it must be noted that 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)(J)(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 can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 
evidence of a one-time achievement, specifically 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) through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence for the alien under at least 
three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On motion, counsel argues that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award 
and that she meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
We acknowledge that the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, as noted by counsel on 
motion. The "preponderance of the evidence" standard, however, does not relieve the petitioner 
from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements required by the statute and regulations. 
Therefore, if the statute and regulations require specific evidence, the petitioner is required to submit 
that evidence. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). For instance, the plain language of the statute specifically requires that the 
beneficiary's "achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation." 
[Emphasis added.] In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the beneficiary seeks to enter the United States to continue to work in her area of 
extraordinary ability, has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a coach and that she is 
one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed below, the petition may not be approved. 
1 The petitioner was initially represented by attorney In this decision, the term "previous counsel" 
shall refer to 
2 According to infonnation on the Form 1-140 petition, the petitioner was last admitted to the United States in 1999 as a 
HI-B nonimmigrant temporary worker in a specialty occupation. Her authorized period of stay in that classification 
appears to have expired on August 20, 2007. 
Page 3 
I. Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Expertise in the United States 
This petition, filed on June 12, 2007, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a gymnastics coach. The statute and regulations require that the beneficiary 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. § IIS3(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(S). Since her arrival in the United States in 1999, 
the record reflects that the beneficiary has coached for Southern Tier Gymnastics Academy in New 
York (1999 - 2002), Camden Gymnastics, Inc. in Georgia (2003 - 200S), and Integrity Gymnastics 
and Cheerleading in Ohio (2006 - present). In Part 6 of Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, the petitioner listed the beneficiary's job title as "Optional Girls Team Coach." In addition, at 
the time of the filing of the petition, the petitioner submitted a 31, 2006 letter from _ 
_ Vice President and Co-Owner, stating that she 
wishes to employ the beneficiary "in the the record is 
clear that the beneficiary intends to continue to work in the area of gymnastics coaching in the United 
States. 
Aside from her work in the United States as a gymnastics coach, the record includes evidence 
showing that the beneficiary competed successfully in international gymnastics competitions in the 
1980s and early 1990s. Most notably, the beneficiary won an Olympic team gold medal at the 1988 
Olympics. While a competitive gymnast and a coach 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. l.NS., 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. While the record demonstrates that the 
beneficiary intends to continue working as a gymnastics coach, there is no evidence indicating that she 
intends to compete as a gymnast in the United States. We acknowledge the possibility of an alien's 
extraordinary claim in more than one field, such as a gymnastics coach and a competitive gymnast, 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.S(h)(S). In this case, there is no evidence 
establishing that the beneficiary intends to continue working in the United States as a competitive 
gymnast. Although the beneficiary's competitive accomplishments as a gymnast are not completely 
irrelevant and will be given consideration, ultimately she must satisfy the statutory requirement at 
section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act as well as the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.S(h)(2), (3), and (4) 
through her achievements as a coach. 
USCIS recognizes that there exists a nexus between playing and coaching a given sport. To assume 
that every extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, however, would be too 
Page 4 
speculative. To resolve this issue, a balanced approach is appropriate when reviewing the evidence in 
the aggregate in the final merits determination. Specifically, in a case where an alien has achieved 
recent national or international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of 
coaching at a national level, we can consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall 
pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that we can conclude that coaching is 
within the petitioner's area of expertise. A coach who has an established successful history of 
coaching athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible claim; a coach of novices 
does not. 
II. 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 10 1 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. 
Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
Page 5 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) 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 specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the u.s. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.3 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
) Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 6 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both 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," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "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. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-1120. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a fmal merits determination. In reviewing our appellate decision, the AAO will apply 
the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new 
analysis using the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises. Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), ajj'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see 
also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate 
review on a de novo basis). 
III. Analysis 
A. Major, internationally recognized award 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish eligibility through evidence of 
a one-time achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. As previously noted, 
the beneficiary won an Olympic team gold medal as a competitive gymnast at the 1988 Olympics. 
This major, internationally recognized award, however, was the result of the beneficiary'S 
achievements as a competitive athlete more than eighteen years prior to the filing date of the 
petition. Thus, the Olympic team gold medal that the beneficiary earned as a gymnast is not 
evidence of her sustained national or international acclaim as a coach, the occupation and area of 
expertise in which she seeks to continue to work in the United States. Subsequent to 1991, there is 
no evidence indicating that the beneficiary (age 33 at the time of filing) has remained active as a 
competitor in national or international gymnastics events. Further, the evidence is clear that the 
beneficiary intends to work as an Optional Girls Team Coach for the petitioner. The statute and 
regulations require the beneficiary'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)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.c. §§ I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). See also Lee v. 
INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. In this case, the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a coach. 
The petitioner does not seek to employ the beneficiary as a gynmast. In fact, there is no evidence 
Page 7 
showing that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim through achievements as 
a competitive gymnast subsequent to 1991 or that she intends to work in the United States as a 
competitive gymnast. Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to submit evidence of a qualifying one­
time achievement for the beneficiary as a coach. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3).4 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The record includes evidence showing that the beneficiary won an Olympic team gold medal as a 
competitive gymnast at the 1988 Olympics. ~ficant prizes and awards, the 
beneficiary placed third in the all-around at the___. In 1989~ 
member of the first team and placed second in the all-around at __ 
The same year, she also second in the all-around at the 
in the all-around at The "field of endeavor" for 
which classification is sought, however, is coaching. no evidence indicating that the 
beneficiary seeks to work in the United States as a competitive gymnast. In our initial appellate 
decision, the AAO concluded that the preceding awards all resulted from the beneficiary'S 
accomplishments as a competitive gymnast some two decades ago and thus cannot be considered 
evidence of her national or international recognition as a coach. As previously discussed, the statute 
and regulations require that the beneficiary seeks to continue work in her area of expertise in the 
United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). See also Lee v. I.N.s., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. There is no evidence showing that the 
beneficiary has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
coaching. 
The AAO's appellate decision then erroneously introduced a new element to this criterion beyond the 
relevant regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) by stating: "Nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards won by gymnastics competitors coached primarily by the beneficiary, 
however, can be considered for this criterion." In light of the court's findings in Kazarian that the 
AAO erred by "introducing new evidentiary requirements" and that the AAO's analysis must be 
"consistent with the relevant regulatory language" set forth in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
we withdraw this statement. See Kazarian v. USc/S, 596 F.3d at 1122. "[N]either uscrs nor an 
AAO may unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5." Id. at 1121 (citing Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th 
Cir. 2008». 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 
4 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 8 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. Prizes or awards received by individuals other than the 
beneficiary herself do not meet the plain language requirements of the regulation. 
On motion, counsel states: "[The beneficiary] has received ... lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field of endeavor through the prizes received by 
the athletes she has coached." As discussed above, the plain language of the regulation requires 
evidence of "the alien's receipt" of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. Prizes received by the beneficiary'S pupils in various athletic 
competitions do not equate to her receipt of those prizes. Nevertheless, the prizes received by 
athletes the beneficiary has coached will not be ignored and shall be considered in our final merits 
determination later in this decision. 
Counsel further states: 
[I]n some cases, one type of "comparable" evidence submitted in connection with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) might satisfy more than one of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
See Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 (August 18, 2010). 5 Because the successes and 
acclaim of a coach in artistic gymnastics are determined by the successes of the particular 
athletes that the coach trains, the individual centric categories of recognition outlined in 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to the circumstances of the instant petition. 
Therefore, the success of [the beneficiary's] pupils should be considered comparable 
evidence for purposes of meeting the requirements of8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if 
the criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Counsel argues "that the 
individual centric categories of recognition outlined in 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to 
the circumstances of the instant petition." Simply going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998). In fact, the record reveals that there are 
awards for coaching. For example, with regard to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
the submitted a 2009 letter 
petitioner also submitted an April 28, 2009 letter from _ ••••• 
indicating that her or~anization bestows awards such as 
"Optional Coach of the Year" and "Regional Coach of the Year." Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
5 USCIS has since posted a final, amended version of this memorandum. See PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation a/Evidence 
Submitted with Certain /- / 40 Petitions, dated December 22, 20 I O. 
6 Moreover, according to the USA Gymnastics internet site, the National Association of Collegiate Gymnastics Coaches 
for Women confers awards such as "Head Coach of the Year" and "Assistant Coach of the Year." See http://www.usa­
gvmnastics.org/pages/post.html?PostID"'5272&prog"h, accessed on September 7, 2010, copy incorporated into the record 
of proceeding. We note, however, that local or regional gymnastics coaching honors do not equate to "nationally or 
Page 9 
established that the prizes and awards criterion does not readily apply to gymnastics coaches. Where an 
alien is simply unable to meet the regulatory categories at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)( 4) does not allow for the submission of comparable 
evidence. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet 
the plain language requirements of 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. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's initial appellate 
decision stated: 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner 
must show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Further, the overall prestige of a given associ~ 
determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the a.......--­
overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that the beneficiary represented the _ as a 
gymnast on its Olympic national team. The also submitted evidence showing that 
the beneficiary was designated as a in 1988. In this 
case, "the field for which classification is sought" is coaching. We note that the beneficiary 
achieved the preceding honors based on her ability as a competitive athlete, not as a coach. 
Accordingly, the beneficiary's athletic accomplishments as a member of the s national 
gymnastics team and designation as a Merited Master of Sports of the _, before she was 
active as a coach, cannot serve to meet this regulatory criterion. 
The April 12, 2001 letter from _ states that the beneficiary holds USAG [USA 
Gymnastics 1 Professional Membership. There is no evidence (such as membership bylaws) 
showing that USAG Professional Membership requires outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the beneficiary's field or an allied one. 
The petitioner's motion does not specifically challenge any of the AAO's initial appellate [mdings for 
this regulatory criterion. Rather, counsel simply repeats earlier claims that the beneficiary's 1988 
membership on the gold medal Olympic team for the former Soviet Union as gymnast and her 1988 
"Merited Master of Sports of the _" title meet the elements of this criterion. As indicated 
above, the plain language of this re~y criterion requires evidence of the "alien's membership in 
associations in the field for which classification is sought." In this case, the field for which 
internationally recognized" prizes or awards for excellence in the field. Nevertheless, the existence of such honors 
demonstrates that the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) readily applies to the beneficiary's occupation. 
Page 10 
classification is sought is gymnastics coaching. There is no evidence indicating that the beneficiary 
seeks to work in the United States as a competitive gymnast. As previously discussed, the statute and 
regulations require that the beneficiary seeks to continue work in her area of expertise in the United 
States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § IIS3(b)(I)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(S). 
See also Lee v. I.N.s., 237 F. 2d at 914. As such, the beneficiary's participation as a 
competitor on the 1988 team and the Master of Sports title based on her 
accomplishments as a gymnast in the 1980s do not meet the elements of this criterion for purposes of 
establishing extraordinary ability as a coach. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet 
the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in profossional 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. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's initial appellate 
decision stated: 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have 
significant national or international distribution. . .. Some newspapers, such as the New York 
Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of 
significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.7 
The petitioner submitted articles from thhle~19~8:0~s~in~:~~~:::~ discussing the beneficiary's <l' 
submitted an April 2002 article in 
beneficiary 1: Second youth." While 
is primarily about her prior athletic career and personal life. Aside from briefly mentioning that 
one of the beneficiary's gymnasts was her "a Level 6 competitor," the article does not 
otherwise discuss her as a coach. On submits a one-paragraph note that 
appears in the October 2000 issue While the note states that the 
beneficiary is coaching, it is entitled and is a nostalgic follow-up (i.e. "where 
are they now?") to the beneficiary'S athletic career. The brief note is based on the 
[beneficiary's] accomplishments as a gymnast rather than her claimed field of coaching. The 
plain language of this regulatory criterion requires published material "about the alien ... 
7 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post. but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County. Virginia. for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page II 
relating to the field for which classification is sought." We cannot conclude that the 
preceding material relates primarily to the beneficiary's work as a coach. 
submitted a May 2002 article in entitled 
This article is about gymnastics competition 
rather than the benefic~mentions her name in passing as follows: "In spite of a 
missed double back, _ (Southern Tier) was notable on floor, thanks to her 
demonstration dance. She is coached by fonner _ [the beneficiary]." Results 
accompanying the article indicate that the Friendship Classic consisted of a "Senior" category 
and a "Junior" category. _ placed third in the All-Around "Junior" category. On 
appeal, the petitioner submits a bulleted posting under the "International I.D." section of the 
December 2003 issue quoting the beneficiary and indicating that five 
qwllified for the USAG's Talent Opportunities Program. The author of this 
posting was not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Notwithstanding the above discussion, there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) 
showing that International Gymnast qualifies as major trade publication or some other fonn 
of major media. 
The petitioner submitted articles from 
beneficiary] 
_(March 20, 2003), and 
The authors of these articles were not identified as required by the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. Further, the latter two articles were about the Friendship Classic 
gymnastics competition rather than the evidence (such as 
readership statistics) showing that as major 
trade publication or some other fonn 
The petitioner submitted an of the beneficiary printed from 
www.intlgynmast.com. but the date and author of this material were not provided. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires "published material about the alien in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media" including "the title, date and 
author of the material." The preceding evidence does not meet these requirements. 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes local articles about athletes coa--. 
ne'WS1JaClers -.-----0 as major 
the beneficiary in 
but 
media. 
Regarding articles about the beneficiary's junior athletes or the gymnastics competitions in which they 
competed, articles that fail to mention the beneficiary or that only mention her in passing do not meet 
the plain language of this regulatory criterion.8 
8 See. e.g .. Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that 
articles about a show are not about the actor). 
Page 12 
The petitioner does not now specifically challenge any of the AAO's prior findings for this regulatory 
criterion. Rather, the resubmits copies of several of the articles mentioned above. 
Counsel asserts that is "the largest trade magazine for the field of artistic 
gymnastics," but he does not submit any circulation evidence to support his claim. The unsupported 
statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any 
evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). Moreover, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting 
documentary evidence showing that the material in International Gymnast meets the elements of this 
criterion, which it has not, section 203(b)(I )(A)(i) of the Act requires the submission of extensive 
evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires material about the beneficiary in more than one major publication. 
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. Thus, we can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. 
In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether 
the singular or plural is used in a regulation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet 
the plain language requirements ofthis criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The brief submitted by counsel on motion does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion. The 
brief does not point to specific evidence in the record or challenge any of the AAO's appellate findings 
for this criterion. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence d~ this criterion, the AAO's initial appellate 
decision indicated that the assertions from __ of the 
not supported by any documen . f th ., work of 
others. _ lists nine competitIOns 1993 and 
1997 in which he claims that the beneficiary served as a judge or an arbiter. The statements from _ 
_ do not provide any substantive infonnation about the competitions or specifY the beneficiary'S 
duties and responsibilities as a judge. Rather than submitting contemporaneous evidence of the 
beneficiary's participation as a judge at the preceding competitions (such as official records or a 
judge's credential), the petitioner has instead submitted only letters of support fro~ 
issued long after the competitions took place which repeat the same limited infonnation. A petition 
must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b)(I). The 
nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates 
that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary 
Page 13 
evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely 
on affidavits. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner must submit an original written statement 
on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the reason the record does not exist and whether 
similar records for the time and place are available. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The petitioner has 
not established primary evidence of the beneficiary's participation as a~ competitions 
does not exist or carmot be obtained. Further, the letters of support from _ do not equate 
to secondary evidence or affidavits. 
Additional deficiencies pertaining to the evidence submitted for this criterion will be addressed below 
in our final merits determination regarding whether the submitted evidence is commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. 
As counsel failed to contest the decision of the director or offer additional arguments for this 
criterion, we consider it to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. u.s. Au'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 
1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005). In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required 
evidence necessary to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner has not previously claimed eligibility under this criterion. On motion, counsel now 
states: . work has been . .. Her work is on_ 
who ... compete at the highest and most exclusive gymnastic 
skill levels .... " The beneficiary's field, however, is in athletics rather than the arts. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it applies to the artists. The ten criteria in the 
regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. 
Even if we were to consider the competitive gymnastics accomplishments of the beneficiary's_ 
as comparable evidence under this criterion, it is their athletic work b,,;na displayed and recognized 
in competition. The competitive accomplishments of the beneficiary'~will be considered in our 
final merits determination later in this decision. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet 
the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner has not previously claimed eligibility under this criterion. On motion, counsel now states 
for the petitioner. The 
Pre:sident and Co-Owner of the 
that the beneficiary performs in the critical role 
petitioner initially submitted a January 31, 2006 
petitioner stating: 
Page 14 
[The petitioner] was founded November 1,2001. We currently employ 45 .. We 
are widely known throughout the state as a center of high quality gymnasts and instructors and 
for our contribution to the sport of gymnastics. 
The position of involves directing and coaching the 
•• ~l training athletes for the beam, floor and all-around events, preparing the team for 
competition, coaching and instruction of athletes on the use of the apparatus, observing athletes 
performance and correcting any weakness in technique, and advising on strategy at 
competitions. In addition, the position involves the responsibility of designing training 
programs, supervising the implementation of these programs and the development of gymnasts, 
and evaluating the gymnasts and selecting team for competitions. 
The preceding letter was unaccompanied by documentary evidence to support the petitioner's claim 
that the petitioner is widely known throughout the State of Ohio as a center of high quality gymnasts 
and instructors and for its contribution to the sport of gymnastics. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter a/Saffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter a/Treasure 
Craft a/California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On motion, the petitioner submits a staff profile of Olympic medalist (discussing his 
athletic accomplishments) and group photographs of Level 10 and gymnasts posted on the 
petitioner's internet site. The photograph of the Level 6 gymnas~anied by a caption 
congratulating them for being Ohio State Champions and identifYing'~ as their coach. 
The self-serving information provided in the letter originating from the petitioner's Vice President and 
Co-Owner and the promotional material posted on the center's internet site are not sufficient to 
demonstrate that it has earned a distinguished reputation in the sport of gymnastics. USCIS need not 
rely on self-promotional material.9 For instance, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has 
distinguished itself in national when to other successful . centers in 
this country (such as Further, there is 
no evidence demonstrating how the beneficiary's role differentiated her from the dozens of other 
~yees working for the petitioner, let alone its coaches and its owners and _ 
_ For example, the petitioner failed to submit an organizational chart or other evidence 
documenting how the beneficiary's coaching position fits within the center's general hierarchy, or how 
that role and her duties are otherwise critical to the petitioner. In this case, there is no other evidence 
showing that the beneficiary had performed in a leading or critical role for the petitioner as of the 
petition's filing date. Finally, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting documentary evidence 
showing that the beneficiary's role and the petitioner's reputation meet the elements of this criterion, 
section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that 
statutory requirement, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the 
9 See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (Co D. CA July 6, 2007) aff d 2009 WL 604888 (9'" Cir. 2009) (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). 
Page 15 
submission of evidence of a leading or critical role for more than one distinguished organization or 
establishment. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet 
the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field 
The January 31, 2006 letter from the Vice President and Co-Owner of the petitioner indicates that 
the beneficiary will receive an "annual salary of $35,000 plus standard company benefits." The 
petitioner also submitted a copy of the beneficiary's 2006 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, 
reflecting compensation of $11,930.75. The plain language of this regulatory criterion, however, 
requires the petitioner to submit evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary has a high salary "in 
relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that the 
beneficiary'S earnings are significantly high in relation to others in the field. In light of the above, the 
petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate her receipt of a qualifying major, internationally 
recognized award as a IIIIIiI or that she meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence that 
must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability as a 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). A final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence follows. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct 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," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 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." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-1120. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (iv) and (vii) - (ix). 
With regard to the beneficiary's awards as a submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(i), 
there is no evidence indicating that the any nationally or internationally 
recognized awards in her sport since the early 1990s or that she intends to continue competing as 
gymnast in the United States. As discussed previously, the statute and regulations require the 
beneficiary's national or intemational acclaim to be sustained and that she seeks to continue work in her 
... 
Page 16 
area of expertise in the United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§§ I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). Accordingly, the beneficiary's 
awards and competitive results demonstrating her past record of success as a national and 
international gymnastics competitor from the late 1980s to 1991 are not an indication that she has 
sustained national or international acclaim as a competitive gymnast during the fifteen years 
preceding the petition's filing date. 
On motion, counsel states: "[The beneficiary] has received ... lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field of endeavor through th~ceived by 
the athletes she has coached." Counsel points to letters of support from former _ g~ 
who state that were coached by the beneficiary in the 1990s and officials of the _ 
The petitioner's appellate submission and motion include letters of support attesting to the belleiici!ny' 
coaching activity in in the 1990s. The s appeal included a letter from 
Secretary General, stating: "[The benefici!!f)'] ... during the period 
with 1993 on 1997 worked in a Women's Olympic National Team of_ on artistic gymnastics as 
the coach-choreographer (floor and beam) .... " On motion, the petitioner submits a new letter from 
••••• ,epeating this statement. Both letters list eleven gymnasts who claims the 
The petitioner's appellate submission included an April 8, 2009 letter 
medalist at the 1988 Olympics who also competed in the 1996 Olympics. 
included a letter 
from 1993 to 1997. 
while training for the 1996 Olympics the beneficiary "helped in my balanc:e 
motion, the petitioner submits an August 14, 2010 letter from statin:g: 
training preparation for the Olympic Games, in the city of Minsk In Belarus. At that time, [the 
beneficiary] worked as a coach in the National Team of Belarus. With [the beneficiary] as one of my 
coaches, she trained me balance beam routines." The submitted 
that . coaches 
The petitioner's initial evidence also included a 
nm:t"cl on internet site stating: 
... After the 1992 Olympics, she retired and took part in exhibitions 
jeclded to return to competition and moved to TX to train under 
record demonstrates that the beneficiary 
coach or that her success was ",,,0<1,, attributable to the beneficiary rather 
_ or On page 10 of his brief, counsel refers to the entitled 
stating that "the AAO has failed to properly balance the low 
evidentiary weight of this now defunct blog against the words of the athlete herself." We note, 
however, that it was the petitioner that provided the "The in support 
of the petition. Moreover, counsel does not specifically challenge the facts about _ 
Page 17 
primary coaches in the "The or the profile of 
posted on the Gymn Forum . of support from 
pre:pared especially for the instant petition, the pre-existing biography and profile provide 
independent information about the coaches who are widely recognized and acknowledged 
as athletic career. Neither of these pre-e~ubmitted by 
the petitioner mentions the beneficiary as playing a significant role in __ competitive 
successes. 
The petitioner's appellate submission also incllu.Ql~ 
writes: "[The beneficiary] was 
She helped me become the Silver medalist at the European Cup 1995 and Bronze medalist in the 
FUlronean Championships 1996." On motion, the petitioner submits a 28, 2010 letter from_ 
was the coach and choreographer 
and in this period she coached me. The training regimen was six 
days a week, for six hours per day. I personally interacted with [the beneficiary] during that period." 
In a joint letter submitted with the petition, 
trained" by the beneficiary. The petitioner 
won a bronze at the DTB Cup in 1993, 
bronze at 
credit their success "to having been 
submitted do(:urrlentati<lll showing that 
Invitational in 1995. On motion, the petitioner submits an August 11,2010 letter from 
who states: "I ... trained as part of the National Team of Belarus from 1993-97. . 
our success to having been trained by [the beneficiary], who as famous gymnast­
_ won many sport titles and of course extraordinary coach." 
The above attestations in the preceding individuals' letters, however, have reduced evidentiary value in 
light of evidence submitted in support of an 1-140 petition filed by the beneficiary on December 26, 
2001. Specifically, the beneficiary submitted her official "Work-Record Card" documenting her 
employment in the 1990s. This document reflects that that the beneficiary was employed as a "coach­
masseuse" from March 1, 
1993 until September 1 0, 1993, at which time she became a coach-choreographer at the same school. 
She left that position on November 21,1994. No additional employment appears on the beneficiary's 
Work Record Card until June 12, 1997, at which time she returned to the school as a "teaching coach." 
She returned to the position of coach-choreographer on September 4, 1997 and left on August 20, 1998. 
Thus, this official work record reflects no employment from November 21,1994 to June 12, 1997. The 
beneficiary's official work record not only fails to corroborate the witness letters, it contradicts them. 
The record also includes a 1998 Diploma stating that the beneficiary "entered 
in 1989 and completed the full course of the Academy of Physical Education and 
Sports ... in 1998." The petitioner submitted an article in International Gymnast from April 2002 that 
discusses the beneficiary's employment difficulties in the 1990s resulting from the arrest of her then 
husband. The article states: 
Page 18 
"Before 1993, my life was very good because everyone remembered my successes. But then I 
was nothing to everyone because of my husband." 
[The beneficiary] found herself shunned by former allies. "It's a long story, but everyone I 
knew and everyone who had supported me turned their backs on me," she explains calmly. 
"The sports committee did not allow me to work for a long time, basically because I was the 
wife ofthis thief." 
* * * 
Eventually, [the beneficiary] seized three simultaneous, separate coaching jobs (girls, boys and 
the Belarusian national team). 
This article, written well after the beneficiary's employment gap, does not explain the discrepancy 
between her official work record and the aforementioned letters attesting to her coaching successful 
Belarusian gymnasts from 1993 to 1997. Rather, the beneficiary's quote confirms the information in 
the work record. The AAO's initial appellate decision informed the petitioner of the preceding 
inconsistencies and advised that: 
It is incumbent upon the petitIOner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies 
will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect 
of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. at 591. 
On motion, counsel argues that the AAO: 
incorrectly attributed improper inferences to this work record card. Just because [the 
beneficiary] did not work at the Olympic reserve school for children does not mean that [the 
beneficiary] did not work at all during this time period. The only evidentiary value of the work 
record card is that [the beneficiary] did not work for this school during the period represented by 
the gap in employment. The petitioner has submitted ample evidence explaining her 
participation with the Belarus Olympic team at this time. 
* * * 
The letters _ as well as athletes trained by the beneficiary 
during the all attest to the fact that [the beneficiary] was still employed by 
the Women's Olympic team during this time. 
What the AAO has failed to consider is that [the beneficiary] had been working three jobs prior 
to voluntarily ending her employment . The 
Page 19 
was the only employer that maintained an official work record card 
system, while the Olympic team and junior Olympic team did not maintain such a system of 
reporting employment. 
The petitioner submits an affidavit from the beneficiary stating: 
8. I was an athlete until 1991 on the Soviet National Team. Between 1991 and 1993, I was 
not working when husband was convicted because I had a child and was finishing my college 
education. 
This is an organization 
or to working together for the 
common goal to create world class gymnasts. I worked for this organization until Nov. 21, 
1994. At the same time I was working for the Belarus National Team as a coach on Floor and 
Beam as an independent contractor. During this period, I worked 12 hours a day in both jobs. 
I needed the money since I was a single mother while my husband was incarcerated. 
10. In November of 1994, I was still working on 
had a I quit the youth team and worke,d 
for until 1997 working seven hours per day. 
but since I 
inclep,endellt contractor 
11. Again from 1997 until 1998 I also acquired another job in addition to working for the 
National Team pursuant to my work card. I worked approximately 12 hours per day during 
this period. 
12. From 1993 to 1997, I worked as the coach and choreographer (floor and beam) for the 
Women's Olympic National Team of Belarus as an independent artistic 
gymnastics and trained such gymnasts as: _ 
work during 
period is corroborated in the attached statement o~ the present Secretary 
General of the Belarus Gymnastics Association. 
As discussed above, the petitioner was advised that independent objective evidence was required to 
resolve the aforementioned inconsistencies. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. The 
beneficiary'S affidavit and aforementioned letters of support submitted in <minor! 
not to evidence of her employment with 
from 1993 to 1997. 
support, 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). 
Moreover, with regard to counsel's claim that the Olympic team and junior Olympic team did not 
maintain a system of reporting employment, the unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a 
· , 
Page 20 
motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 
464 U.S. at 188-89 n.6; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 503. Rather than submitting 
independent objective evidence of her employment (such as official employment records or tax 
records from 1993 to 1997), the petitioner relies on letters of support and an affidavit prepared for 
this petition more than a decade later. As previously discussed, the nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
Only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may 
the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be 
unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Id. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner 
must submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the 
reason the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time and place are available. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The petitioner has not established primary evidence of the beneficiary's 
1993 to 1997 employment with the Women's Olympic National Team of Belarus and the Belarus 
National Team does not exist or cannot be obtained. Further, the letters of support submitted by the 
petitioner do not equate to secondary evidence of the beneficiary'S employment or affidavits. 
Moreover, the record does not include evidence from the Belarus Olympic association explaining how 
many coaches train the Women's Olympic National Team of Belarus and the Belarus National Team 
or the significance of the beneficiary's alleged coaching positions. Further, there is no evidence 
showing that the beneficiary served as the preceding gymnasts' head coach or accompanied them to 
international competitions as their official coach. Without evidence showing that the success of the 
preceding Olympic gymnasts was primarily attributable to the beneficiary'S coaching, we cannot 
conclude that their athletic accomplishments demonstrate her sustained national or international acclaim 
as a coach. 
the beneficiary's coaching accomplishments in the United States, the petttlOner 
12,2001 letter from~ __________ ." __ • 
stating that the benefiCiary "is involved in coaching all levels of gymnasts, up to 
and including the international elite gymnasts." further states that the most n~ 
coached the beneficiary in the United States were~,~ an~ 
While identified the programs in which these gymnasts p~id not specifY any of 
their or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The petitioner also submitted a letter 
from correspondent for International Gymnast, asserting that_ placed third at 
the Classic," an international competition held in 2002. The petitioner has not 
established that placing third in a "Junior" level competition equates to a nationally or internationally 
recognized award or is commensurate with achievement at the very top level of the sport. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner submitted information on motion about the USA Gymnastics Women's Program 
competency levels stating: 
There are 11 Competency Levels to the USA Gymnastics Women's Program. Levels 1-4 are 
non-competitive levels that center on teaching the basic core skills for each of the 4 Olympic 
events. 
Page 21 
* * * 
The first competitive level is Level Five. It consists entirely of compulsory routines. 
Compulsory routines are a pre-choreographed series of skills that each competitor must 
perform. Once again they are made up of core skills needed for each event, built on the skills 
from a previous level. The philosophy of these routines is for the athletes to practice toward 
perfection of these basics. The minimum age for this level is 7 and there is no maximum age. 
At level 5 awards are given in achievement and places. 
Level Six is also compulsory only level of competition. Each level builds on the skills of the 
previous level and likewise is judged with higher expectations. . .. The minimum age for 
this level of competition is 8. 
* * * 
The first level of optional competition begins with Level Seven. Optional competition 
consists of each gymnast performing her own routines for each event. The Federation of 
International Gymnastics (FIG) produces the optional rules every 4 years in conjunction with 
the Olympics. 
There are four optional only levels 7, 8, 9, 10. The minimum age for level 8 is 8, while for 
levels 9 and 10 it is 9. As with the compulsory levels, the requirements and expectations from 
one level to the next increases. 
Level 9 is the third level of optional competition. Its difficulty requirements and expectations 
are harder than at Level 8. Level 10 is considered a Pre-Elite Level and for the truly 
dedicated and motivated gymnast. 
Elite is the 11th level of competition. Like level 10 it is for the truly dedicated athletes. The 
Elite level is broken up into 2 categories. National and International. JR. National 
Elites compete skill testing and optional routines. SR. National Elite competes optional 
only; JR. International Elite competes optional only while SR. International Elite 
competes both compulsory and optional. It is from the International rank that our Olympic 
and World Championship teams are chosen. 
The petitioner also submits data from USGyms.Net showing that out of 54,612 children involved in 
USA Gymnastics in the year 2000, only 1,767 qualified at Level 10 and only 190 qualified as Elite. 
We note that the statistics that the petitioner submitted for the population of 54,512 children include 
Level 4 "non-competitive" athletes and pre-teen youth at various intermediary levels. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted results from the Region 5 
Level 9 & 10 Championships in April 2007 indicating that placed first in floor 
exercise, Junior Olympics Level 10 results reflecting that placed fifth in the 
Page 22 
"Junior B" category in 2007, and Motown Madness results for 2007 showing that the petitioner 
placed second in the Level 10 team competition. We note here that awards from regional 
competitions, such as the "Region 5" gymnastics championships, do not equate to "nationally or 
internationally" recognized awards. The petitioner also submitted 2008 results from various junior 
and regional competitions that post-date the filing of this petition. A petitioner, however, must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider competitive 
achievements from 2008 or later in this proceeding. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted information _ 
_ but there is no evidence showing that they received any nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards at the top level of the sport during their period under the beneficiary's direct tutelage. 
The petitioner also submitted three certificates from USAG indicating that 
qualified for National Talent Opportunities Program Testing, the Women's Junior Olympic State Level 
8 Championships in 2004, and the Junior Olympic Level 10 National Championships in 2008. The 
petitioner's appellate submission also included twelve congratulatory certificates presented to the 
beneficiary'S pupils at the petitioning entity who qualified "to the Women's Junior Olympic Regional 
Level 8 Championships" in 2008 and 2009. The preceding certificates from 2008 and 2009 post-date 
the filing of the petition. As discussed previously, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time 
of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the 
AAO will not consider the preceding certificates from 2008 and 2009 in this proceeding. 
With regard to the statistical data from USGyms.Net and the beneficiary'S U.S. athletes' receipt of 
awards in "Junior Olympic," restricted age group, or other non-elite level competition, we do not 
find such evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary "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). USCIS has long held that even 
athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" 
standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.10 
Likewise, it does not follow that a gymnastics coach who has had success coaching athletes at the 
"Junior" or non-elite level should necessarily qualifY for an extraordinary ability employment-based 
immigrant visa. To fmd otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen 
10 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. III. Feb. 16, 1995), the Court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. III. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(21, and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
· .' 
Page 23 
to the very top of their field of endeavor." In this case, there is no evidence showing that elite level 
gymnasts coached primarily by the beneficiary have won nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards. 
Moreover, even if the petitioner were to resolve with independent objective evidence the inconsistencies 
in the record regarding the s Belarusian in the 1 demonstrate that she was 
the primary coach of and when they 
received internationally recognized awards in the mid-1990s; and establish third place 
in the "Junior Friendship Classic" in 2002 is a nationally or internationally award, this 
evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary's national or international acclaim as a 
gymnastics coach has been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Without evidence showing that the gymnasts under 
the beneficiary's direct tutelage have received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
in the five years preceding the petition's filing date, we cannot conclude that her acclaim as a coach of 
elite gymnasts has been sustained. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(iii), counsel points to the articles in 
International Gymnast. However, there is no evidence showing that articles in this magazine or in 
any major publications have been written about beneficiary, relating to her work as a coach, 
subsequent to 2003. Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to submit evidence that demonstrates that 
the beneficiary has sustained any acclaim as a gymnastics coach she may have garnered as of 2003. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(vi), there is no supporting 
evidence showing significance of the Belarusian competitions, the names of the participating athletes 
judged by the beneficiary, or their level of gymnastics expertise. Without contemporaneous 
documentary evidence establishing that the beneficiary has actually participated as a judge and that 
her activities involved judging top athletes at the national level or above (rather than age-group 
categories or junior competitors), we cannot conclude that her involvement was commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. For instance,~ notes in her letter of support that she has served as an 
"International Brevet Judge" in internationally recognized competitions. There is no documentary 
evidence establishing that the beneficiary has served in a comparable judging position at the national 
or international level. Moreover, we cannot ignore the absence of evidence of the beneficiary's 
participation as a judge in the decade preceding the petition's filing date. The unsupported claim that 
the beneficiary served as a gymnastics judge during the 1990s is not sufficient to demonstrate that any 
acclaim she may have enjoyed has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Beyond the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner submitted several letters 
of support, many of which have already been addressed. While reference letters can provide useful 
information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters 
do not equate to extensive evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the 
statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
4 , ' 
Page 24 
8 C,FR § 103.2(b)(2)(i). The classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ I 1 53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 c'F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens 
of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 
5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than 
opinion statements from individuals selected by the petitioner or the beneficiary. 
states: "[The 
beneficiary] is a well-respected gymnastics coach within USA Gymnastics Region 5 not only due to 
her own personal gymnastic accomplishments, but her coaching abilities in training young athletes. 
She is a great asset to USA Gymnastics Region 5." 
An April 14, 2009 letter submitted on appeal from 
[The beneficiary's] athletes have competed at the highest level in the United States, and one 
of them won the 2008 Junior Olympic (J.O.) Floor Exercise Crown and was subsequently 
named to the J.O. National Team ... , This year alone, three of [the beneficiary's] athletes 
have been offered full athletic scholarships to Division I Institutions. 
In the same manner Head Coach at Ohio State University, states that 
the beneficiary "has earn full scholarships to Division One institutions" 
during the 2009 gymnastics season. These accomplishments post-date the filing of the petition. As 
discussed previously, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider achievements from 2008 and 2009 in this proceeding. Nevertheless, we carmot conclude 
that having one's gymnasts win a "Junior" level competition or secure college scholarships 
demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Her knowledge of our sport is remarkable, and her ability to 
communicate what she knows to her athletes, young and old is tremendous." 
states: "I think [the 
beneficiary's] experience as a experience in coaching 
and her educational level are the perfect ingredient for the proper development of our young 
athletes. " 
ofthe petitioner, states: "[The beneficiary] was an excellent athlete and an 
even more extraordinary coach of gymnastics. She is an irreplaceable asset to [the petitioner] and 
the children she coaches." 
'" .' ~ 
Page 25 
"I have known [the beneficiary] from a young age. We were training at 
the same gym in Riga, Latvia. I spent years watching her grow from a young, talented gymnast to ... 
Olympic Champion! ... As I am a qualified expert in the gymnastics field, I consider [the beneficiary] 
as a coach with extraordinary abilities." 
_ states: "[The beneficiary] has proven herself as a talented coach .... Her achievements in 
sports as an Olympian gymnast help her in her work. Knowing gymnastics not by hearsay, she 
successfully transfers the experience to today's sportsmen." 
a world-renowned gymnastics coach and National Team Coordinator for USA 
[The beneficiary] is a gymnastics coach of extraordinary ability and will continue to work as a 
gymnastics coach in the U.S. if her residence is granted. . .. [The beneficiary] has 
participated mUltiple times 
Opportunity Program), 
-In this case, the petitioner has submitted letters from impressive experts whose opinIOns are 
important in gymnastics. However, the opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, 
cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is 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-
796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fac!"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements 
and how they became aware of the beneficiary's reputation are important considerations. Even when 
written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are 
of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of achievements and recognition that one 
would expect of a gymnastics coach who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
We ackn~any of the beneficiary's references have credentials that are impressive. For 
example, __ is the National Team Coordinator for USA Gymnastics. _ states that 
she and her husband, • "have trained nine Olympic champions" and "fifteen world 
champions;" that she was head coach of the U.S. women's team for the 1996 Olympics; and that she 
served as National Team Coordinator for the U.S. women's team between 2001 and 2008 (during which 
period the team won 44 medals in World Championship and Olympic competition). 
. , 
. . 
Page 26 
gold, silver, and bronze Olympic medalists. He also served on the International Elite Committee for 
USAGand 
In describing her qualifications, _ states: 
I ... am 
an Brevet 
Games. From 1993 to the present, I have 
have been a member OO~f~th:e~w:o~m:e~n~'s~~:=~::~e~ iynlln2lsti1cs Federation, serving. 
consulted for and/or 
coached gymnasts 
also held the position of 
The preceding individuals' accomplishments indicate that the very top of the beneficiary's field is far 
higher than the level she has attained at this stage of her coaching career. While the petitioner need not 
demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than the beneficiary to qualify for the classification 
sought, the evidence of record falls short of demonstrating that the beneficiary's achievements at the 
time of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a gymnastics 
coach, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The conclusion 
we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does 
not distinguish the beneficiary as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished herself to such an 
extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
beneficiary's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary'S eligibility pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(A) 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. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 
F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate 
review on a de novo basis). 
Page 27 
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, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The AAO affirms its previous decision. The petition remains denied.