dismissed EB-1A Case: Rhythmic Gymnastics Coach

i#mt?fj&g data delettd b 
pnt clew' -~warrantec 
hV8Sf0~ of PW~ D~VWY 
PUBLIC COP,' 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W ., Rm. A.3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 184 54314 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 3 1 2005 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
) Administrative Appeals Office 
l! 
WAC 03 184 543 14 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, 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 the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 
5 204.5(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. 9 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on May 29, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
"Rhythmic Gymnastics Coach." Documentation in the record indicates that the petitioner has been serving as 
a rhythmic gymnastics instructor at the Specialized Youth Sports School of Olympic Reserve #5 in Astrakhan 
City, Russia since 1994. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Jan Exner, Rhythmic Program Director, USA Gymnastics, who states: 
"The United States Gymnastics FederationIUSA Gymnastics is the exclusive national governing body for the 
sport of gymnastics in the United States." The petitioner also submitted information from USA Gymnastics' 
website, which states: 
WAC 03 184 543 14 
Page 3 
In 1962, the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) officially recognized rhythmic gymnastics as a 
sport. . . . The United States sent their first delegation to the Rhythmic World Championships in 1973. 
The rhythmic individual all-around competition was.added to the Olympic Games in 1984. In 15196, the 
rhythmic group event was added as a medal-sport at the Olympic Games for the first time. 
The petitioner submitted documentation pertaining to her career as a competitive rhythmic gymnast in Russia. 
This documentation indicates that she last competed in 1991. There is no evidence showing that the petitioner, 
age twenty-five at the time of filing, remains consistently active at the national or international level as a 
competitive rhythmic gymnast. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h) requires the beneficiary to "continue work in the area of expertise." As 
noted by counsel and as indicated under Part 6 of the 1-140 petition, athletic competition is not the field in which 
the petitioner seeks to continue working in the United States. In this country, the petitioner clearly intends to 
work as a coach. While a rhythmic gymnast and coach certainly share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on 
very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competing and coaching are not the same area of expertise. This 
interpretation has been upheld in Federal Court. In Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F.Supp.2d 914 (N.D.Il1. 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. 
The statute requires the petitioner to establish sustained national or international acclaim. In the present case, 
the petitioner's career as a competitive rhythmic gymnast ended in the early 1990's. Since 1994, the petitioner 
has worked as a rhythmic gymnastics coach. In such a situation, where the petitioner has had ample time to 
establish a reputation as a coach, she must show that she has earned sustained national or international 
acclaim based on her achievements as a coach rather than her prior reputation as an athlete. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from G.E. Lukina, Director of the Specialized Youth Sports School of 
Olympic Reserve #5, Astrakhan City, Russia, who states: "In 1987 [the petitioner] became a winner of all- 
union tournament. In 1991 she became a champion of Russia in group routine and a Master of Sport." 
WAC 03 184 543 14 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the "Department of Education of the Russian Republic of the 
Soviet Union" in October 1987 stating that she won "first place in the Rhythmic Gymnastics Championship 
of the Soviet Union among juniors." At the time, the petitioner was only ten years old. A 'tjur~ior" level 
award is not an indication that an individual has reached the "very top of the field of endeavor." There is no 
indication that the petitioner faced national competition from throughout her entire sport, rather than only her 
approximate age group within her sport. 
The petitioner submitted a photocopy of a first place medal alleged to be from the 1991 Russian National 
Championships. In a letter responding to the director's request for evidence, counsel states: "[The 
petitioner's] group at this national championship in 1991 was judged against the top teams frorri all other 
regions and [the petitioner's] team was judged to be the best." We note that this award was a team award 
rather than an individual award. While a team award certainly does not preclude eligibility under this 
criterion, the petitioner must still demonstrate that her achievements at this competition played a primary role 
in her team's victory. Large-scale athletic competitions such as a national championship typically issue event 
programs listing the order of events, the name of each specific' event, the names of all of the participating 
athletes, and their competitive ranking. At a competition's conclusion, results are usually provided indicating 
how each participant performed in relation to the other competitors in his or her athletic events. The 
petitioner, however, has provided no first-hand evidence of the scoring results for this competition, showing 
that she played a predominant or leading role in the her team's overall victory. Nor is there evidence showing 
that this competition included athletes above the junior level.' 
The petitioner submitted an identification certificate issued by the Government Committee of the USSR for 
Culture and Sport reflecting her designation as a "Master of Sports" in rhythmic gymnastics. ln a letter 
accompanying the petition, counsel states: 'The number 268,009 represents the total number of "Master of 
Sport" designations ever awarded in the Soviet Union and including all sports. On December 15, 1991, only 
268,008 other athletes in the entire Soviet Union . . . had received this designation." In a letter responding to 
the director's request for evidence, counsel further states: 
The "Master of Sport7' designation takes many years of successes in competitions to achieve; . . . is 
granted only to top athletes who have demonstrated superiority in their respective sports; and is 
awarded only after application of a complex system of "points" through which the athlete is judged 
against her peers, taking into account the significance of the events, the awards won at the events and 
the ranking of the individual athlete. The rank "Master of Sport" is just below "International ('World 
Class) Master of Sport" which in turn is below only "Olympic Champion." 
While the petitioner has submitted proof of her designation as a Master of Sport, first-hand evidence of the 
official requirements for this designation has not been provided. Without documentary evidence to support 
his claims, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BL\ 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). 
I The petitioner was only fourteen years old when this competition took place. 
WAC 03 184 543 14 
Page 5 
In addition to the above deficiencies, we cannot ignore that the petitioner's 1991 national team award and her 
"Master of Sport" designation were based on her ability as an athlete. These awards do not establish that she 
has sustained national or international acclaim as a coach. It is not clear that significant awards exist for 
rhythmic gymnastic coaches; however, nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by 
individuals or teams coached by the petitioner may be considered as comparable evidence for this criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). Here, it is important to evaluate the level at which the petitioner acts as a 
coach. A coach who has an established a successful history of coaching top athletes who $in titles at the 
national level or above has a credible claim under this visa classification; a coach of intermediates or junior- 
level athletes does not. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner Vice 
President of the Rhythmic Gymnastics Federation of Russia, stating th 
petitioner], received a bronze medal at European Championship in 
a letter from 
6. 
ho states: "Under [the petitioner's] supervision, I have finished third on 
European Champions ip in group routine in 1997 in Greece, as well as champion on international tournament 
in Bulgaria in 1998." The record includes evidence showing th eceived "a bronze for 
rope" at the "Senior AA" level at the fifth annual San an international 
competition held in 1998. A crucial omission from the record, however, is evidence showing that the 
petitioner accompanied Irina Chaplygina to the preceding combetitions as her primary coach. 
The etitioner also submitted evidence indicating that she "trained the World Cham ion among Juniors, 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter fro 
P 
ho state:;: "Under 
t e petitioner's] supervision I became the World Champion among c u teams on junior level in 2000 in P 
Japan and have earned the ti "Master of Sports on International Level." The record includes evidence 
showing that d eceived the highest all-around score at the "Junior AA level at the San 
Francisco Rhythmic Invitational in 1998. Clearly, the Junior level does not represent the highest level of 
competition in the sport of rhythmic gymnastics. The petitioner must show that gymnasts under her tutelage 
have won in competitions at the highest level, rather than competitions limited to a particular age group or 
skill level. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted official results from five rhythmic 
gymnastics tournaments that took place in Russia in 2004 (exhibits marked J, K, L, M, and N). This evidence 
came into existence subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility 
at the time of filing; a petition carmot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comrn. 
1971). Furthermore, there is no indication that these results related to senior level competitions rather than 
junior level competitions. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter fromother of who states 
gymnastics with the petitioner from 2002 10 2005. 
prepare Anastasia for major competitiorls when 
does not state that the petitioner is her daughter's primary 
tutelage in Russia. The record lacks evidence 
showing that the petitioner has regularly trained Anastasia Torba or accompanied her at national or 
WAC 03 184 543 14 
Page 6 
international com~etitions (as her official coach). The wetitioner's avwellate submission includes evidence - L 
showing thataced third in the All-~roind Junior Category at the 11" annual San Francisco 
Rhythmic Invitational in 2005. Aside from not reflecting competition at the highest level of rhythmic 
gymnastics, this evidence came into existence subsequent to the petition's filing date. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak at 45,49. 
Other than who enjoyed some measure of success at the international level in 1997 and 
1998, there is no indication that any other rhythmic gymnasts directly under the petitioner's tutelage have 
won national or international titles at the highest level of the sport (i.e., the Senior level) subsequent to the late 
1990's and leading up to the petition's filing date of May 29, 2003. We cannot ignore the: statute's 
requirement for evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence showing that the 
petitioner's gymnasts have consistently won national or international titles at the highest level over a 
sustained period, we cannot conclude that the petitioner satisfies this criterion as a coach. In this case, the 
evidence is not adequate to show that the petitioner has earned sustained national or international acclaim in 
the years proximate to the filing date through coaching top athletes or teams to championships at the national 
level or above. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classificatio,a is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
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. 
Furthermore, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the na.tiona1 or 
international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association that 
evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, the 
overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requiremeilts rather 
than the association's overall reputation. 
In res onse, to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a November 9, 2004 letter from 
ice President, National Federation of Rhythmic Gymnastics, certifying that the petitioner "is 
a mem er o the Federation of Rhythmic Gymnastics of Astrakhan Region and is a member of the National 61 
Federation of Rhythmic Gymnastics as per Contract of January 5, 2004." There is no evidence showing that 
the petitioner held membership in either organization as of the petition's filing date. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.:2(b)(12); 
Matter of Katigbak at 45, 49. New circumstances that did not exist as of the filing date cannot retroactively 
establish eligibility as of that date. Aside from the issue of the date that this evidence came into existence, we 
note that the record contains no evidence of the bylaws or official membership requirements for the 
Federation of Rhythmic Gymnastics of the Astrakhan Region or the National Federation of Rhythmic 
Gymnastics to demonstrate that these organizations require outstanding achievement as an essential condition 
for admission to membership.' Nor is there any evidence showing that the petitioner was evaluated by 
2 The petitioner submitted a letter from the Specialized Youth Sports School of Olympic Reserve #5 in Astrakhan City 
(marked as exhibit R) explaining that membership in the National Federation of Rhythmic Gymnastics "is awarded only 
to the coaches whose students have received a gold, silver, or bronze medal in the Russian National Championship, the 
WAC 03 184 54314 
Page 7 
experts at the national or international level, rather than the regional level, in consideration of her admission 
to membership. 
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 allied3eld of specification for which class$cation is sought. 
As previously noted, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. P 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. For example, judging 
an Olympic competition is of far greater probative value than judging a local age-group competition. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from the "Physical Training and Sport Committee" of the "Adrninistra1:ion of the 
Astrakhan region" conf-ng the petitioner "took part in International rhythmic gymnastic competition = 
from 28 till 31 of October 2001 as a referee." The record contains no further information about this 
competition or the specific event categories judged by the petitioner. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of' the Act, 
however, requires extensive documentation sustained national or international acclaim. It has not been shown 
that the events refereed by the petitioner at this competition involved athletes at the senior level as opposed to 
athletes at the junior, intermediate, or novice levels. To satisfy this criterion, the petitioner must show that the 
competition is at the national or international level and involves top gymnasts in the sport. The one-sentence 
discussion of the petitioner's participation is not adequate to demonstrate her national or international acclaim. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted three certifications (exhibits rnarked T, 
U, and V) issued by the following individuals: 
l~ead Judge and Judge of the National Level, and 
the Head Judge and Judge of the National Level 
jead Judge and Judge of the National Level, and -sin Assistant 
Judge and Judge of the National Level 
The above certifications state that the petitioner served as a judge and as an assistant of the Head Judge at 
competitions held in January, May, and November of 2004. This evidence, however, came into e:xistence 
subsequent to the petition's filing date. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak at 45, 49. Subsequent 
developments in the petitioner's career cannot retroactively establish eligibility as of the filing date. The 
petitioner offers no explanation as to how she was able to serve as a judge at events where the athletes whom 
she coaches were among the competitors. Nor is there any evidence showing that the petitioner has served as a 
judge on the same level as the individuals listed in items 1 through 3 above. 
- 
European Championship or the World Championship competitions." Official membership information originating from 
the National Federation of Rhythmic Gymnastics itself is of greater probative value than second-hand infixmation 
provided by the petitioner's immediate employer. 
WAC 03 184 543 14 
Page 8 
The petitioner also submitted a November 9, 2004 letter fromice President of the Rhythmic 
Gymnastics Federation of Russia, stating that "the certification documents of [the petitioner] as a Certified 
Judge State Category is [sic] currently being processed in the Awards Department of the Federal Agency of 
Athletics, Sports and Tourism of Russia." This evidence also came into existence subsequent to the petition's 
filing date. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak at 45, 49. Based on this letter, it is apparent that the 
petitioner was not eligible to judge at the "State Category" or national level until some time after November 
2004. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Counsel notes that between 1992 and 1994 the petitioner toured multiple countries performing in a 
gymnastics exhibition entitled "Calisthenics Constellation." his production was an 
international exhibition designed by [the petitioner's] mother, World Champion in 
Gymnastics, to demonstrate the artistic features of the sport o along with other 
gymnastics disciplines at venues around the world to expose the sport to the public." There is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner has performed in such an exhibition subsequent to 1994, therefore, she has not 
sustained her prior acclaim as a performer. 
The AAO has consistently found that this particular criterion is more appropriate for visual artists (such as 
sculptors and painters) rather than for public performers. Acclaim is generally not established by the mere act 
of appearing in public, but rather by attracting a substantial audience. The record contains no evidence 
showing that the petitioner's performances as a leading or principal performer drew record crowds, were 
regular sell-out performances, or resulted in greater audiences than other similar performances that did not 
feature the petitioner. 
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore that the petitioner in this case seeks classification as a rhythmic gymnastics coach 
rather than as a gymnastics performer. Publicly performing artistic gymnastic routines is clearly not the field in 
which the petitioner seeks to continue working in the United States. We find that the petitioner's evidence fails to 
satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pegonned in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner's evidence is adequate to fulfill this criterion. In order 
to establish that she performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of her role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for the Specialized Youth Sports 
School of Olympic Reserve #5 in Astrakhan City, Russia. 
The petitioner submitted a letter (marked exhibit 5) from the school's director,- stating: "From 
1994 [the petitioner] has been working in SDUSHOR No. 5 as rhythmic gymnastics coach. NOFV she is 
WAC 03 184 543 14 
Page 9 
training a school team in group routine for theirs [sic] participation in Russia championship in December of 
2001 ." 
In a letter responding to the director's request for evidence, counsel states the petitioner "presently holds the 
position of Senior Instructor." The record, however, does not indicate the date of the petitioner's appointment 
to the Senior Instructor position. Subsequent developments in the petitioner's career cannot retroactively 
establish that he was already eligible for the classification sought as of the filing date. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(12); 
Matter of Katigbak at 45, 49. 
A subsequent letter from G.E. Lukina (marked exhibit X) states: 
[The petitioner] is trusted to train gymnasts for the Russian National Team. There are a total of 38 
coaches at SYSOR and only five of them are in charge of the training programs for the highest level 
gymnasts. [The petitioner's] sparking coaching talent and artistic approach of the training process have 
helped her to attain the leading role at one of the oldest and most respected gymnastic schools in 
Russia. 
In this case, the record does not adequately document the petitioner's role as coach from 1994 to 2003. G.E. 
Lukina does not indicate whether the petitioner trains gymnasts for the junior national team or the senior 
national team. The evidence of record indicates that the petitioner works primarily in the youth category. 
Nor doetate that the petitioner is the head coach of School #5's overall rhythmic gymnastic 
training program. The vague statements offered by not adequately distinguish the petitioner's 
role from that of the other rhythmic gymnastics coaches at School #5. It has not been adequately established 
that the petitioner's role as a coach at School #5 is any more important than that of the other coaches or senior 
instructors. Nor has the petitioner provided official statistics showing that from 1994 to 2003 students under 
her direct tutelage consistently outperformed their competitors from the other specialized youth sports schools 
in Russia or won a greater percentage of championships at the senior national level. 
For the above reasons, we find the petitioner has not established that she has performed in a leading or critical 
role for a distinguished organization, or that her involvement has earned her sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel argues the director erred by not finding that certain evidence constituted comparable 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). While 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence, a 
petitioner must demonstrate that the regulatory criteria are not applicable to the alien's field. Where: an alien 
is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the use of comparable evidence is inappropriate. In 
this case, as national awards for coaches are far rarer than for athletes, we accepted as analogous evidence 
prizes awarded to athletes coached by the petitioner. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate: that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three 
WAC 03 184 543 14 
Page 10 
of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessaq to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent thi~t 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 the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
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. Accorclingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.