dismissed EB-1A Case: Rowing Coach

(b)(6)
li.S. Department or Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Sc,rvicc 
Administrative Appeals Ol'ticc (1\'AO) 
20 Massachusclts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washin!!ton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: 
JAN 3 0 10\3 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance· with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision thatthe motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
)JbWndv 
~~~n Rosenberg . · 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.go" 
(b)(6)
..• 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary in athletics as a rowing coach. 1 The director d~termined that the petitioner 
had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation 
of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
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)(l)(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 of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (v), (viii), and (ix). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the 
director's decision. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics . which has been . 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
) 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
1 According to information on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last admitted' 
to the United States on January 18, 2010 as an F-1 nonimmigrant student. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and- legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. /d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). -
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a· 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld 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.2 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." /d. at 1121-22. 
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 type_s of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit 'sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to 
satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." /d. at ·1122 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a fmal merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petiti~ner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper 
conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally impo~ed 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) . 
(b)(6)
Page4 
II. INTENT TO CONTINUE WORK IN THE AREA OF EXPERTISE IN THE U.S. 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in his area of 
expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, in Part 5, the petitioner lists his occupation as "Rowing Coach," and in Part 6, "Basic 
information about the proposed employment," he lists his job title as ''Head Rowing Coach." 
The petitioner submitted a December 23, 2011 letter from Manager of 
Noncredit Instructional Programs, Fitness and Recreation Center, stating that 
the petitioner has worked as a rowing coach and an instructor of fitness training to rowing 
students of various skill levels. further states: "[The petitioner] has taught at 
l for the past two ·years in both the Summer Term Instmctional Program and the 
Noncredit Instructional Program, and has consistently received excellent reviews from his 
students." The petitioner also submitted a December 6, 2011 letter from Director 
of Athletics and Alumni Relations, stating that the petitioner has 
worked for four years in the capacity of lead crew instructor, head crew coach, and lead · 
coordinator of all instructional and competitive crew programs for the academy's high school 
rowing program. In response to the director's request for evidence, the oetitioner submitted 
documentation indicating that he has worked as Head Scullin!! Coach at the .J 
since May 2012 and as Head Rowing Coach for thP since March 
2012. As the petitioner's employment with the and the 
post-dates the filing of the petition, the AAO will not consider his work with those 
organizations as evidence to establish his eligibility. Eligibility must be established at the time 
of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comin'r 
1971 ). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under 
a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision 
further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." /d. at 176. 
Regardless, based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner and the information provided on 
the Form I-140, the record is clear that the petitioner intends to continue to work as a rowing 
coach and instructor in the United States. 
Aside from documentation establishing the petitioner's intention to continue to work in the 
United States as a rowing coach and instructor, the petitioner submitted evidence of his athletic 
accomplishments as a Junior .rower and a member of the In 
addition, the petitioner submitted information regarding his collegiate rowing career as a member 
of the There is no documentary 
evidence showing that the petitioner has competed nationally or Internationally as a crew athlete 
subsequent to 2010. While a rowing coach and competitive rower may share knowledge of the 
sport, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching 
are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in federal court. In Lee v. 
J.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in 
(b)(6)Page 5 
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 
bas·eball industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
/d. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. While the record demonstrates that 
the petitioner intends to continue working as a rowing coach and instructor, there is no 
documentary evidence indicating that he intends to compete regularly as an athlete in sporting 
events in the United States. The AAO acknowledges the possibility of an alien's extraordinary 
claim in more than one field, such as a rowing coach and rowing competitor, but the petitioner 
must demonstrate "by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). In this matter, there 
1
is no evidence 
establishing that the petitioner intends to continue working in the United States as a rowing 
competitor. Specifically, the petitioner states on appeal: "I intend to continue to work in the 
field of coaching rowing in the United States." Accordingly, the petitioner must satisfy the 
statutory requirement at section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act as well as the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2)_ and (3) through his achievements as a rowing coach. 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted evidence of his athletic accomplishments as a 
Junior rower, as a member of the and as a member of the 
The "field of endeavor" for which 
classification is sought, however, is coac ing. There is no evidence indicating that the petitioner 
seeks to work in the United States as a competitive rower. Awards resulting from the petitioner's 
success as a competitive athlete cannot be considered evidence of his national or international 
recognition as a coach or an instructor. The statute and regulations require that the petitioner 
seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii) ; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). See also Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. 
Supp. 2d at 9 J 4. Accordingly , awards won by the petitioner as a competitive athlete do not meet 
the elements of this regulatory criterion for purposes of establishing his extraordinary ability as a 
coach. 
The petitioner submitted an August 26, 2009 certificate from the ''for 
his exceptional contribution to the development of the rowing s ort in ' The . petitioner 
also submitted a December 30, 2011 letter from _ president of bqth the 
and the . _ stating that the petitioner "received an award 
for outstanding performance as a coach and a rower in 2009 by the 
3 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision . 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
This is a very prestigious award that any rowing coach could get in [The petitioner] 
definitely deserved it and had a positive vote from all the national coaches." In addition, the· 
petitioner submitted a letter from _ _ Secretary General, 
stating: "In 2009, [the petitioner] received an award as the best young coach from the 
I The petitioner also submitted a November 17, 2011 letter from 
Head Coach of the stating: "[The petitioner's] success on 
the national and international scene earned him a prestigious coaching award for an exceptional 
coach in 2009 by 
the _ The preceding references' comments provide 
only limited information regarding the petitioner's award and are not sufficient to demonstrate 
that his August 26, 2009 certificate from the is a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. The petitioner's documentation also 
included an English language translation of an August 28, 2009 article in entitled 
but the petitioner failed to submit a copy of the original article 
published in the language. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). On aepeal, the 
petitioner submits a document bearing the logo of the that he· 
identifies as "the award eligibility requirements" for his August 26, 2009 award certificate for' 
"exceptional contribution to the development of the rowing sport in ' The document lists 
ArtiCles 57 - 59 of the · _ oertainine to 
the "Outstanding Contribution to the Development of the Rowing Sport in the 
I award. The AAO cannot ignore that the preceding articles were "approved, at a meeting 
held on 16 November 2009," eleven weeks after the petitioner had already received his award 
from the _ Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the 
submitted eligibility requirements were in effect on the date that he received his award from the 
federation. 
The petitioner submitted a blurred ohotol!raph of his ''Best CoachAward" for the 2005-2006 
season from the The foreign language inscription on the award is 
illegible and was unaccompanied by a certified English language translation. Pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), ~my document containing foreign language submitted to 
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language 
translation that the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The petitioner also submitted a 
letter from Vice President of the stating that the 
petitioner "received an award as the best young coach in '05 and .'06." In addition, the 
aforementioned letter from states: "[The petitioner] was recognized as the best 
rowing coach in 2005 and '06." The preceding references' comments provide only 
limited information regarding the petitioner's award and are not sufficient to demonstrate that his 
Best Coach Award for the 2005-2006 season is a nationally or internationally recognized award 
for excellence in the field. The petitioner also submitted an English language translation of a 
(b)(6)
Page 7 . 
December 21. 2006 article in , entitled ' 
but the petitioner failed to submit a copy of the original article 
published in the Serbian language. As previously discussed, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The nonexistence or other unavailability of . 
primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). On appeal, 
the petitioner submits a document bearing the logo·of the that he identifies 
as "the award eligibility requirements" for the _ Best Coach Award for the 
2005-2006 season. The document lists Articles 64 - 67 of the "Articles of Association of the 
p~rtaining to the "Award for the Best Rowing Coach." The AAO cannot 
ignore that the preceding articles were "approved, at a meeting held on 24 December 2011." five 
years after the petitioner had already received his Best Coach Award from the _, 
-·--. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the submitted eligibility requirements 
were in effect on the date that he received his award from the club. Regardless, the petitioner's 
Best Coach Award from the J ~ ~eflects institutional recognition from the 
club that employed him rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In addition to the preceding deficiencies, the petitioner failed to submit evidence of the national 
or international recognition of his August 26, 2009 certificate from the 
and his Best Coach Award from the . The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be 
nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish 
every element of this criterion. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating 
that the petitioner's awards were recognized beyond the presenting organizations and therefore 
commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of various awards won by competitive athletes that he coached. 
For instance, the petitioner submitted documentation of the silver and bronze medals from the 2006 
rowers 
petitioner's rowers 
those prizes. 
and the 2009 respectively, won by 
whom he coached. Awards received by the 
in various athletic competitions, however, do not equate to his receipt of 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
I included 
the photos of the silver and bronze medals from the 2006 
and 2009 respectively, of the crews which 
I coached. The rowers and their respective Federations receive the medals at the 
gave me the medals for coaching those 
crews. 
[Emphasis added.] The petitioner submits a November 12, 2012 e-mail message from--···-·-
, Events Coordinator, , stating: ---
(b)(6)
Page 8 
I confirm that there is a medal presented in addition to the crew's medal at each 
However this medal is not for the coach personally but for the National Federation. 
Usually those medals are presented to the President of the federation or to a federation 
member at the Victory ceremony of each boat class. 
[Emphasis added.] There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner himself was 
awarded a silver or bronze medal at the victory ceremony ·at the 2006 ........ ~. .. ~ .. ~ 
; or the 2009 Instead, the competition organizers 
presented the medals to and the i The 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires documentation of "the 
alien's receipt" of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. Prizes or awards received by organizations or individuals other than the 
petitioner himself do not meet the plain language requirements of the regulation . Nevertheless, 
the awards received by athletes the petitioner has coached will be considered later in this 
decision under the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). As there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in coaching, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain 
language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
The peti,tioner initially submitted two letters from stating that the petitioner has 
been a member of the : since 2007. The petitioner also submitted a 
December 2011 from Secretary General, , stating that 
the petitioner became a member of the club's board in 2008. The petitioner's initial evidence 
also included a December 30, 2011 letter from , president of both the 
and the stating: "[The petitioner] was elected by the 
members of the board at the assembly in August, 2008. fThe oetitioner] is the youngest 
member of the board in the club's history." The letter from did not specifically 
identify the petitioner as a member of the or the date when the 
petitioner's membership commenced. 
On June 1, 2012, the directonequested further evidence pertaining to the petitioner's association 
memberships. The director specifically requested evidence showing that the associations 
"require outstanding achievements" of their members and stated that the petitioner may submit 
the "section of the association's constitution or bylaws which discuss the criteria for 
membership." 
(b)(6)Page 9 
In response to the director's request for evidence. the oetitioner submitted a July 20, 2012 lett~r 
from _ Secretarv General. stating that the 
petitioner "is a full member of the ' but he does not specify the date 
when the petitioner became a full member. As previously discussed, eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 49. The docllmPnt~rv Pvirle.ncP ~uhmittP.d by the petitioner fails to ·establish his full 
membership in tht: on or before January 25, 2012. For instance, the. 
petitioner did not submit evidence showing the date that 
his full membership was recorded in the 
Association's Book of Members (item 5 below). Furthermore, the AAO notes that the 
articles submitted by the petitioner do not require "outstanding 
achievements" of those. admitted to full membership. Specifically, Article 9 states: 
1. Admission .to full membership of the requires a 
recommendation for a candidate to be given before the Association Assembly by 
regular members of the Association; 
2. Admission to full membership requires evidence that the candidate's efforts and work 
have contributed to the quality and advancement of rowing in and abroad; 
3. Full-fledged members of the Association vote on the admission of a new Association 
member at a regular meeting of the Assembly; 
4. New Association members are equal in terms of rights, duties, and liabilities; 
5. New Association members are recorded in the Association's Book of Members; 
6. Association members must be citizens of the 
\. 
There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the requirements specified in items 1 - 6 
above constitute outstanding achievements. J 
The petitioner's response also included articles 40 - 46 of the "Articles of Association of 
governing "Club Members, Members' Rights and Duties ." The AAO 
cannot ignore that the preceding articles were "approved, at a meeting held on 24 December 
2011," more than three years after the petitioner had been elected to membership in August 
2008. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the submitted eligibility requirements 
were in effect on the date that he became a member of the board. With regard to the "Admission 
of New Members," Article 40 states: 
1. Candidates for the Board of Directors 
);> individuals whose work has benefited the Club's operation and growth; 
);> individuals who are national experts in rowing; 
);> coaches with outstanding sports results; 
);> individuals with particular merit in the development of rowing. 
2. Admission of new members is decided by the Club's Board of Directors by a simple . 
majority of all members (50%+ 1). 
3. The Board's decision may be appealed before the Assembly, whose decision shall be 
final. 
4. New members shall have the same rights as all the other members of the Board of 
Directors . 
(b)(6)Page 10 
5. New members shall be recorded in the Club's register. 
6. New members shall adhere to the Club's Articles of Association. 
Regarding the four requirements for "Candidates for the Board of Directors" listed under item 1 
above, it is unclear whether an individual may meet only one of the four or must meet all four in 
order to be a candidate. Without further evidence of these requirements, AAO cannot conclude 
that improving a dub's operation and growth, being a national expert in rowing, or 
demonstrating merit in the development of rowing constitute outstanding achievements. 
The petitioner failed to submit evidence pertaining to the 
membership requirements in response to the director's request for . evidence. The director's 
decision stated: 
It was requested the [petitioner] provide the applicable portions of all organization 
bylaws to demonstrate outstandin achievement was a membership requirement. The 
membership requirements for the was [sic] not provided in 
the request for evidence response. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits the requirements for becoming a member of the 
As the petitioner had the opportunity to submit the _ 
membership requirements in response to the director's request for evidence, the 
AAO will not consider this evidence offered for the first time on appeal. Where a petitioner has 
been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity ·to respond 
to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See 
Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires 
"membership in associations" in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single 
high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it 
expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience 
must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO 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 . See 
Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12. (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); 
Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a 
combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the AAO were to find that the 
petitioner's membership in the meets the elements of this regulatory 
criterion, which the AAO has not, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of the petitioner's membership in more than one association 
(b)(6)
Page II 
requmng outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted a May 15, 2006 article in , entitled 
While the article notes that the petitioner coached a 
"junior class" pair at an the article is not about the 
petitioner. Instead, the article is about two crews from the rowing team that 
competed in the regatta in The plain language of the ' regulation at 8 C.ER. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alieri ... relating to the alien's 
work in the field." Thus, an article that mentions the petitioner but is "about" someone or 
something else cannot qualify under the plain language of this regulation. See Noroozi v. 
Napolitano, 11 CV 8333 PAE, 2012 WL 5510934 at *I, *9 (S.D.N:Y. Nov. 14, 2012); also see 
generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show or a character within a show are not about the 
performer). 
The petitioner submitted a June 4, 2006 article in . entitled 
but the article is not about the petitioner. Instead, the 
article is about the selection process for the rowing team. 
The petitioner submitted a January 8, 2007 article in entitled 
but the article relates to the petitioner's work as a 
competitive athlete. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires published material 
"relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." [Emphasis added.] In 
this matter, the "field for which classification is sought" is coaching. There is no evidence 
indicating that the petitioner seeks to work in the United States as a competitive rower. As_ 
previously discussed, the statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work 
in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). See also Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. 
Accordingly, published material about the petitioner's work as a competitive athlete does not 
meet the elements of this regulatory criterion for purposes of establishing his extraordinary ability as 
a coach. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted the following: 
1 
1. An English language translation of an August 28, 2009 article entitled 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
m 
2. An English language translation ·of a July 7, 2009 article entitled 
., in 
3. An En_glish langua_ge translation of an August 21, 2009 article entitled 
in and 
4. An English language translation of a December 21, 2006 article entitled 
'in 
With regard to items 1 - 4 above, the petitioner failed to ~nhmit a copy of the original articles 
published in the language in and As previously discussed, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence IS not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. A 
petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, while items 2 and 3 quote the 
petitioner, the articles are not about him. Instead, they are about a pair of rowers coached by the 
petitioner (item 2) and a regional rowing conference at the m 
fitPm 3). The petitioner's .response also included a letter from the Editor-in-Chief of 
stating that his newspaper sells "approximately 30,000 copies per day" and a 
letter from the Chief Editor of stating that his newspaper has "approximately 
12,000" copies sold daily. Regarding the self-serving distribution information provided by 
and own editors, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. 
See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (concluding that the 
AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's 
status as major media). There is no evidence showing the distribution of . and 
relative to other newspapers to demonstrate that the submitted article.s were published 
in a form of "major" media. 
In addition, the petitioner's rPsnnnsP to the rlirectn ·~ reoue~t for evidence included a June 18, 
2012 online article entitled This article was 
published subsequent to the petition's filing date. As previously discussed, a petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider material published after January 25, 
2012 in this proceeding. Regardless, there is no evidence showing that the website which posted 
the preceding article qualifies as a form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner 9as not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
(b)(6)Page 13 
The petitioner submitted his "National Rowing Umpire" license from the 
dated June 27, 2007. The petitioner also submitted a September 27, 20ll letter from 
Secretary General, _ , listing ten regattas in which 
the petitioner participated as a "licensed National Rowing Umpire." In addition, the petitioner 
submitted an October 2, 2011 letter from Vice-Chief 
Rowing Referee, stating: 
"[The petitioner] took a part in 10 races, making sure that a dozen of rowers complied with the 
race rules." [Emphasis added.] There is no evidence demonstrating that a rowing umpire actually 
judges the competitors' work, rather than merely ensures that rules and procedures are followed and 
the regattas are held in a safe and fair manner. The record lacks official competition rules from the 
showing that serving as an "umpire" equates to participating as "a 
judge" of the work of others in the same or an allied field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence the petitioner submitted a July 17, 2012 letter 
from Sports Director, , stating: 
This letter serves as the confirmatipn that [the petitioner] served as the reviewer of the 
work other coaches at the (The petitioner] was appointed as the 
head coach in 2005/6 season. 
His duties as the head coach were to evaluate the work of 9 coaches· who were working in 
the club. [The petitioner] was required to analyze their work and make suggestions to the 
director of the club for the improvement of coaching staff. 
[The petitioner] was an excellent judge of the ~ork of other coaches, because he was able 
to find their imperfections; point out to them and make sure that the other coaches 
grasped the concepts of rowing which [the petitioner] as the head coach thought would be 
best for the program. 
[The petitioner] developed and then implemented a set of rules by which every coach 
would be evaluated at the end of the rowing season. Some of them are: observation off 
and on the water, ability to explain technical theories of rowing/sculling, psychological· 
preparation, practice implementation, etc. 
His quantitative set of coaching metrics proved so effective that we still use his system of 
review today. 
Supervising and internally reviewing the performance of other coaches working at ________ _ 
does not equate to participation as a judge of the work of others in the field. · The 
phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually 
as specified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read 
to include every informal instance of evaluating others on the same coaching staff. Further, the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[e]videnc~ of the alien's participation ... as a 
judge of the work of others." Rather than submitting a copy of the completed reviews from 2005-
2006 showing the petitioner's assessments of the other coaches, the petitioner instead submitted 
a brief letter from issued in 2012 attesting to the petitioner's involvement. There 
(b)(6)Page 14 
is no documentary evidence showing the petitioner's specific assessments and the names of those 
he evaluated. As previously discussed, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting. the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Moreover, if testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, 
or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter 
of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). In this instance, the record does not include primary 
evidence demonstrating the petitioner's participation as a judge. A petition must be filed with 
any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or 
other unavailability of primary . evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). When relying on secondary evidence, the petitioner must provide documentary 
evidence that the primary evidence is either unavailable or does not exist. /d. When relying on 
an affidavit, the petitioner must demonstrate that both pnmary and secondary evidence are 
unavailable. /d. The July 17, 2012 letter from does not comply with the 
preceding regulatory requirements. 
The petitioner also submitted a July 18, 2012 letter from 
Team Manager, stating: 
The would like to confirm that [the petitioner] was on the 
panel for judging the performance. [The petitionerl was part of the 3 member committee 
which purpose was to review the work of the coaches. The quality 
of rowing in has improved a lot since we established this committee. 
* * . * 
[The petitioner] did an admirable job with the amount of work he had put into helping , 
these national team coaches to achieve their utmost potential with coaching the 
[The petitioner] assessed their work based on the results and performance the 
coaches achieved with their crews in the previous years. Additionally, [the petitioner] 
observed and evaluated the work of these coaches with their rowers on and off the water. 
[The petitioner] gave them an effective feedback (visual, technical, verbal) and explained 
to them how to reduce their weaknesses in coaching and practice planning. [The 
petitioner] had to grade every coach's coaching ethic and submit his report to the 
would carefully review his · 
assessments and ~ecide whether to keep or replace the team coaching 
staff. 
Through [the petitioner's] exemplary efforts, the coaches w~r~ ahl~ 
to grow and advance their abilities, ultimately benefiting the rowers and the 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a November 1, 2012 letter from stating: "I want to 
confirm that [the petitioner] judged the work of the • in the 
summer of 2009 (August 1 - 4). The judging process was three days long because committee 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
members had to evaluate the work of four ." The AAO notes that the 
petitioner served as an assistant coach 'for the in the summer of 
2009. Supervising and internally reviewing the performance of other coaches on the team staff 
does not equate to participation as "a judge" of the work of others in the field. Further, the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires "[e]vidence of the alien's participation ... as a judge 
of the work of others." Rather than submitting a copy of the evaluation report from 2009 
showing the petitioner's assessments of the coaches, the petitioner instead submitted brief letters 
from issued in 2012 attesting to the petitioner's involvement. There is no documentary 
evidence showing the petitioner's specific assessments and the names of those he evaluated .. 
·Once again, going . on record without supporting documentary evidence ·is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. Moreover, if testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater 
need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
The record does not include primary evidence demonstrating the petitioner's participation as a 
judge. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). When relying on secondary evidence, the 
petitioner must provide documentary evidence that the primary evidence is either unavailable or 
does not exist. /d. When relying on an affidavit, the petitioner must demonstrate that both 
primary and secondary evidence are unavailable. /d. The July 18, 2012 and November 1, 2012 
letters from do not comply with the preceding regulatory requirements. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included a July 30, 2012 letter 
from President of , stating that the petitioner is the Head Rowing 
Coach for the _ letter further states that the petitioner 
oversees "the work of his assistant coaches and the novice coaches," including "assessing their 
performance." The petitioner also submitted his Referee certificate from the 
ssued on July 30, 2012 and documentation of rowing events referee by the 
petitioner in the United States starting in March 2012. On appeal, the petitioner submits an 
October 3. 2012 e-mail informing him of his assignment as chief referee for the 
on October 13. 2012. The AAO notes that the petitioner's employment as head 
coach for the his qualification as a R~feree with the 
and the rowing events that he refereed in the United States from 
March 2012 to present all post-date the filing of the petition. As previously discussed, eligibility 
must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, ·14 
I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the preceding evidence in this 
proceeding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts for the first time in these proceedings that · he meets this 
regulatory criterion based on the awards received by his rowers. The AAO notes that the 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
petitioner did not claim eligibility for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
initially or in response to thedirector's request for evidence. The director's June 1, 2012 request 
for evidence listed the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and specifically stated: 
"No evidence has been provided for this criterion." The_ petitioner's response to the director's 
request for evidence failed to offer any specific arguments or evidence to overcome the director's 
finding. The issue for the AAO to determine on appeal is whether the director erred in his 
decision. In this instance, as the issue was never raised as a claim of eligibility before the 
director, the AAO cannot conclude that the director made any error in determining that the 
petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. Where a petitioner has been put on 
notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that 
deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Mauer of 
Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 764; see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533. Regardless, 
the petitioner fails to explain how awards or race results for his rowers equate to evidence of his 
"original" contributions in the field of coaching. Further. the oetitioner has not established that 
results from rowing events such as and competitions were majorly 
significant to the sport. Moreover, the documentary evidence submitted on appeal for this 
criterion relates to competitive results and coaching activities that post-date the filing of the' 
petition. Once again, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Therefore, the AAO will not 
consider competitive results or coaching activities that occurred after January 25, 2012 as 
evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner's initial evidence meets this 
regulatory criterion. The initial evidence specifically submitted for this regulatory criterion 
consisted of only two letters from discussing the petitioner's status as 
~ board member and coach. The AAO notes that the petitioner's response to the 
director's request for evidence included the aforementioned July 17, 2012 letter from 
discussing the petitioner's head coaching duties at that was 
submitted for the judge of the work of others criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(J)(lv). The 
petitioner also submitted competitive results for the rowers that he coached. While the petitioner 
erformed in a leading role as head coach, there is no documentary evidence· showing that the 
has a distinguished reputation. Regarding the self-serving assertions from 
the _ officers about the club's reputation, USCIS need not rely on self-
promotional material. See Braga v. Poulo~, at 680. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence 
showing that the petitioner has performed in ·a leading or critical role for distinguished 
"organizations or establishments" in the plural. As previously discussed, the use of the plural is 
consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the' 
Act. Therefore, even if the petitioner were to submit ·documentary evidence showing that his 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
role and the reputation of the meet the elements of this regulatory 
criterion, which he has not, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
requires evidence of a leading or critical role for more than one distinguished organization or 
establishment. 
While the petitioner did not specifically claim eligibility based on his role for any other 
organizations or establishments, the AAO notes that the petitioner did not begin coaching the 
\ until March 2012 and the until May 2012.· 
As the petitioner began his head coaching positions for them subsequent to the petition's filing 
date, the AAO will not consider his roles for the preceding organizations as evidence to establish 
his eligibility. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing .. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Although not specifically claimed by the petitioner for this regulatory criterion, the AAO 
acknowledges that the petitioner submitted letters of support from and 
stating that the petitioner was an "assistant" coach for the and under 
_ There is no documentary evidence showing that the _ 
has a distinguished reputation. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soff'ici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. The next issue is whether the petitioner has performed a leading or critical role 
for the as a whole. In general, a leading role is evidenced from the 
role itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien is responsible for the success or standing of 
the organization. The petitioner failed to submit an organizational chart to demonstrate where his 
· assistant coaching position fits within the overall hierarchy of the The AAO 
notes that __; was the "team manager" and "head coach" and that was the 
" Further, while the petitioner submitted documentation showing that 
coached by him have successfully competed at the international level 
for the the evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that his 
role was leading or critical to the as a whole. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 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 petitioner initially submitted a January 9, 2006 head coaching agreement with l 
stating that the petitioner 
would receive a monthly fee in the amount of 80,000 
dinars. The petitioner also submitted information from the website stating that the 
average net salary in 
in December 2006 "totaled 28,267 dinars" and information from the 
website stating 
that the average salary in in June 2005 equals 
25,503 dinars. The petitioner must submit evidence showing that he has earned a "high salary" or 
other "significantly high remuneration" in relation to others in his field, not simply a salary that is 
above "average" for all Serbian occupations. The petitioner must present evidence of objective· 
earnings data showing that he has earned a "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in 
comparison with those performing similar work. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
' 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour 
golfers); see also Skokos v. U.S: Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 
2011) (finding average salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison 
to others in the field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL 
enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 
1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an April 27, 2006 
contract with the stating that the petitioner 
would receive a monthly 
payment of 85,000 dinars. The petitioner also submitted a July 12, 
2012 letter from stating that the petitioner was the highest paid coach at 
J for the 2006 ~P.::~~on Tn ::~clclition, the petitioner submitted information from the 
Statistical Office of the J indicating that the "average" gross salary for. 
professional rowing coaches in the in June 2006 was 48,240 dinars. The 
petitioner, however, must submit evidence showing that he has earned a "high salary" or other 
"significantly high remuneration," not simply earnings that are above "average" in his field. The 
petitioner's resQonse also included a June 24, 2012 letter from Administrator, 
stating that the petitioner was the third highest paid rowing coach in 
the2005-2006 season 
The petitioner failed to submit primary document::~rv P.viciP.nr.P. ~howinP that he actually received 
the 80,0000 dinar monthly remuneration from and the 85,000 dinar 
monthly remuneration from the in 2006. For instance, the petitioner 
did not submit his 2006 income tax forms from or his 2006 bank stateme~ts showing the 
payments to his account at _ _ in accordance with the payment 
terms specified in the aforementioned two contracts. As previously d~scussed, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R . § 103.2(b)(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or unavailability of required evidence 
creates a · presumption of ineligibility. 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 evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be 
unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. ld. In this instance, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that rimary evidence of the payments he received from the J 
and the does not exist or cannot be obtained. The documentation 
submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate that he received a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories· of 
evidence. · 
(b)(6).. 
--··-· - --
Page 19 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly. 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits' 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "le_vel of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes tJtat the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination.4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
/d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F. 3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) . In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l )(ii). See also section I 03(a)( I) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March I, 2003); 8 C .F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.1 (f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec . 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS , is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions) .