dismissed EB-1A Case: Soccer Coach

identifying data deleted to 
prev~nt clearly unwarranted 
mvaSlOn of personal privacy 
pUBLIC COpy 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u.s. Citizenship and Irrmigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Wash;ng(on. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
JAN 1 0 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1 I 53(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. § I03.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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)(I)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and 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)(I )(A)(i) of the 
Act. 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 under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner 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 a preponderance 
of the evidence, as noted by counsel on appeal. The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of 
evidence that the alien is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 
1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter of Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 774 (BIA 1988); Matter of Sao Hoo, II 
I&N Dec. lSI (BIA 1965). 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)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ I I 53(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). In this case, the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he has 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's decision. 
I. Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Expertise in the United States 
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. 
§ I I 53(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). In Part 5 of Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, the petitioner listed his occupation as "Professional Soccer Coach." Under part 6 of the 
form, "Basic Information about the proposed employment," the petitioner states that he will 
"[p llan, organize and conduct practice sessions." In addition, the petitioner submitted a personal 
statement detailing his plans to continue working as a soccer coach in the United States. The 
petitioner states: "I have had offers to coach in America, from such organizations as 
Page 3 
petitioner also 
submitted evidence showing that he completed the Union of European Football Associations 
(UEFA) B-License Coaching Course in 2007. The record thus reflects that the petitioner IS 
seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as a soccer coach. 
In addition to evidence of his coaching intentions, the record includes documentation pertaining to 
the petitioner's athletic career as a soccer player in South Africa and in the 1970s and 
1980s. The petitioner's athletic achievements playing 
••••••••••••••••••• ilj occurred more than nineteen years prior to 
the July IS, 2009 filing date of the petition. Accordingly, the petitioner's accomplishments as a 
soccer player in the 1970s and 1980s are not evidence of his sustained national or international 
acclaim as a coach. Subsequent to retiring from playing in the late 1980s, there is no evidence 
indicating that the petitioner, age SI at the time of filing, has competed as a professional soccer 
player. 
As noted above, 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. 
§ IIS3(b)(l)(A)(ii), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(S). While a soccer player and coach share 
knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, playing soccer and 
coaching are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in federal court. 
In Lee v. IN.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary 
ability" as working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, 
not necessarily in any profession in that field. For example, _ 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. 
ld. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim through 
achievements as a soccer player since his career as a competitor ended in the late 1980s. Further, 
while the record adequately demonstrates that the petitioner intends to work as a soccer coach, 
there is no evidence indicating that he intends to compete as a professional soccer player in the 
United States. We acknowledge the possibility of an alien's extraordinary claim in more than one 
field, such as a soccer coach and a professional soccer player, 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 
petitioner intends to compete as a soccer player for any teams in the United States. Although the 
petitioner's competitive accomplishments as a soccer player are not completely irrelevant and will 
be given some consideration, ultimately he must satisfY the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) 
and (3) through his achievements as a coach. 
II. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
Page 4 
(I) 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. 723 101 sl 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, 
internationally recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(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; 
Page 5 
(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 m the field, m 
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 20 I 0, 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.! 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. 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 types 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)." 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 1 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. § I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i). 
I 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.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 6 
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 final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than 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), affd, 345 FJd 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. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on July 15, 2009, seeks to classify the petItIOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a soccer coach. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).2 
Documentation o{the alien's receipt o{lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
"great achievement of winning five titles in 
as the soccer team's "Manager/Coach" and 
petitioner's initial evidence also included two Certificates of Merit from 
soccer club in recognition of his being "1st Team Player of the Year" and "Players' Player of the 
Year" for the 1989 soccer season. The preceding athletic honors equate to regional or 
institutional soccer club honors rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field. The plain language of the regulatory criterion 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 case, there is no supporting documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's 
playing honors were commensurate with "nationally or internationally recognized" prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field. Further, 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 
sections 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
As the field of endeavor in which the petitioner seeks to continue working is coaching, not 
playing, ultimately he must satisfy the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
Page 7 
his nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence as a soccer coach. 
Accordingly, the petitioner's awards from the 1980s demonstrating his achievements as a soccer 
player carmot serve to meet this regulatory criterion. Additional deficiencies pertaining to the 
preceding evidence will be addressed below in our final merits determination regarding whether the 
submitted evidence is commensurate with "sustained national or international acclaim" as of the 
petition's filing date. 
the petitioner submits a January 7, 2010 letter from 
The Football Association (FA) Learning Limited, 
The purpose of this letter is to confirm that our <ll]~~~~ 
African soccer coach [the petitioner] 
qualification upon his completion of the required process of training and assessment. ... 
As a consequence of completing this qualification, [the petitioner] has demonstrated that 
he has the coaching competencies required to use his knowledge and operate at the elite 
levels of the game whilst developing himself further through his commitment to 
Continuous Professional Development. Because of the prestigious nature of this award, 
we employ a very robust and demanding assessment process and will only deem a 
candidate coach competent when they have reached the exacting standards demanded. 
The petitioner's initial evidence 
that the petitioner completed the 
stating 
further 
states: "The course , Fitness, Annual 
Periodisation and Tactical of Coaching Sessions and Match Analysis to name a few." 
The petitioner's is a coach's training qualification issued upon completion of 
coursework rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
the field of endeavor.3 In this case, there is no evidence of the petitioner's receipt of any 
J While the petitioner's UEFA B-License is a Level 3 qualification, infonnation about FA Learning courses at 
TheFA.com indicates that the FA offers far more advanced courses such as the "UEFA A License" (Level 4) and the 
"UEFA Pro License" (Level 5). See http://www.thefa.com/GetintoFootbaIIlF ALeaming/FALeamingPagesl 
ResidentialCourses, accessed on December 17, 2010, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. The FA's 
website states: 
Level Three Certificate in Coaching Football (UEFA B Licence) 
Understand match analysis and performance evaluation 
Coaches will gain detailed coaching knowledge based on functional practices, small sided (8 v 8) games and 
phases of play to enhance game related understanding. This knowledge will aid them to evaluate player and 
team perfonnance and set goals accordingly. Coaches will also learn how to analyse matches, assess fitness, 
provide a psychological evaluation of players and build on nutritional awareness. 
UEFA A Licence 
Raising the benchmark 
One of the most respected qualifications in the game, the UEF A A Licence will educate candidates in the 
practical and theoretical developments in modem football, so that they may devise, organise, and evaluate 
coaching sessions in the advanced skills, tactics, strategies and systems of play. Candidates are required to 
undertake a mandatory UEFA A Preparatory Course prior to the Part One of the UEF A A Licence. 
UEFA Pro Licence 
Page 8 
nationally or internationally recognized "prizes or awards" for excellence m coaching. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner 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.4 
~ubmitted articles from the 1970s and 1980s in 
__ and other unidentified newspapers me:ntion:ing 
Several of the preceding articles describe the petitioner's work as a "player-coach" for teams such 
as Hellenic and Camps Bay. Many of the submitted articles did not include the name of the 
publication, the date, and the author as required by the 
Further, there is no documentary evidence showing 
_, and the other unidentified newspapers equate to major media in South Africa or any 
other country. 
The petitioner also submitted several foreign language newspaper articles from the 1980s. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), any 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 foreign language 
articles submitted by the petitioner were not accompanied by proper English language 
translations as required by this regulatory criterion and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
in an unidentified publication. The 
H""' .. ,.a. were as required by the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. The article, which is about the petitioner's career as a soccer player in the 
Id. 
The Ultimate Coaching Qualification 
The highest coaching qualification in the game, the UEFA Pro Licence will be mandatory for all Premier 
League Managers from 2010. The Pro Licence marries the finer points of a coach or manager's match 
preparation with other non-football specific modules including employment law, finance, the media, 
technology, business management and club structure. 
4 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 9 
1970s and 1980s and which briefly mentions his work as a coach in 
as a "38-year-old" who "acts as a financial services consultant 
the petitioner's age as mentioned in the article, the article appears to have been published some 
time in the mid-I 990s. The article concludes by stating: "[The petitioner] returned to his home 
town and played for Hellenic before taking over the managerial duties of the club until he retired 
in 1989." 
The petitioner also submitted a May II, 2009 article 
[The petitioner]." There is no documentary evidence showing that a professional or 
major trade publication or some other form of major media. The majority of the article is about the 
petitioner's activities as a soccer player from 1974 to 1988. The article concludes by stating: 
Since his retirement in 1988 [the petitioner] has concentrated on his business. 
In 2007, however, the 51-year-old financial trader returned to the game, having 
successfully completed the FA Advanced Coaching Licence (UEF A B Licence). 
"Ever since I returned from Germany in 1982, I've worked with provident funds, but I 
needed to get back into football," he says. 
"I'm looking to do some coaching and am currently attempting to get a B 1 visa for the 
U.S. I have a letter of recommendation who I coached at Hellenic, and 
I'm also looking at getting something fro~. We grew up together, and it was 
his father who signed me for City." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a captioned 
photograph of two others and himself in Cape Argus stating: 
DOUBLE TROUBLE ... only weeks after the soccer season ended, 
signed up the coaching services of former Hellenic players, 
petitioner]. Farrell and [the petitioner] has been appointed 
respectively for the 1989 season. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the submission of "[p ]ublished 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 captioned photograph from the late 1980s does not 
meet these requirements. The petitioner also submitted a profile of Cape Argus from its website 
stating that the newspaper has a readership of 359,000 and circulation of 60,552. The self­
serving claims posted on the website of Cape Argus do not establish that this newspaper qualifies 
as a form of "major" media. There is no evidence (such as objective circulation information from 
an independent source) showing the distribution of Cape Argus relative to other media to 
demonstrate that the newspaper is a form of major media. Additional deficiencies pertaining to the 
petitioner's published material from the 1970s and 1980s will be addressed below in our final 
merits determination regarding whether the submitted evidence is commensurate with "sustained 
national or international acclaim" as of the petition's filing date. 
Page 10 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
As evidence for this criterion, the petitioner initially submitted published material reporting on 
his activities as a player for various soccer teams in the 1970s and 1980s, but this material has 
already been addressed under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Because 
separate criteria exist for original contributions of major significance in the field and published 
material about the alien, USCIS clearly does not view these criteria as being interchangeable. To 
hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Nevertheless, the 
petitioner has not established that published articles about his being signed to various teams or his 
on-the-field plays in various soccer games are tantamount to original athletic contributions of major 
significance in the sport. 
The petitioner also submitted letters from the Cape Town City Football Club stating that they 
renewed his playing contracts for the 1976 and 1978 seasons, a September 1974 letter informing 
the petitioner of his '''l''''''llJll 
petitioner as a member 
and photographs ofthe petitioner playing soccer in various 
tournaments. no establishing that securing a position to compete for these teams 
and in these tournaments equates to original athletic contributions of major significance in the sport. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted letters of support 
discussing his work as a coach during the 1980s. Talent and success in coaching players in one's 
sport, however, are not necessarily indicative of original contributions of major significance in the 
field. The record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original athletic contributions 
that have significantly influenced or impacted the field of soccer coaching. 
South Africa, states: 
I got to know [the petitioner] firstly as a player with my club but then as a 
highly respected player/coach for Hellenic Soccer Club. It was always a daunting task 
for my team to play against Hellenic in those days, because of the organized manner in 
which he was able to mobilize his team. His teams were always extremely motivated and 
disciplined and for this he garnered national recognition. Simply put, his coaching skills 
and ability made him one of the best in the country, perhaps even the best. His 
uninterrupted dedication to, and passion for, soccer as well as his ongoing stature as one 
of the finest coaches South Africa has is clear for all to see by him been 
awarded the in 2007. It is 
pleasing to see that soccer coaches of [the petitioner's] caliber and knowhow are 
rewarded by these prestigious International qualifications and I'm certain that he will do 
the name of soccer proud wherever he may coach in the world. 
Page 11 
not provide specific examples of the petitioner's original coaching techniques 
metnC)d010~~les that have significantly impacted the sport. Moreover, the petitioner's UEF A 
B-License is a coach's training qualification issued upon completion of coursework rather than 
an original athletic contribution of major significance in the field. 
states: 
In 1989, with firm instructions from the club's governing committee, I personally head 
hunted [the petitioner], who was then the Head Coach of the highly successful Hellenic 
Football Club. At the time, due to his remarkable success as a coach and unsurpassed 
knowledge of the game, [the petitioner] could have commanded soccer coaching jobs 
anywhere at the highest level in South Africa, if not abroad as well. We recruited him 
aggressively, as we believed, quite simply, that he was the best in the country. 
Our success on the field once we had the fortune of obtaining [the petitioner's] services 
made it clear that our judgment had been precisely correct. He took us from 3rd bottom to 
4th from the top in our league in just one season as well as being runner-up in the 
lucrative National Bobsave Knock Out Competition, losing narrowly to arch-rivals 
Hellenic in the final. Remarkable, and telling, that the two teams that reached the final 
were those [the petitioner] was currently coaching, and had just stopped coaching, 
respectively. The second season under [the petitioner] saw us finishing runner-up in the 
league, but more encouraging was the fact that he managed to mould this town into a 
winning outfit on the field that played precise, colourful and entertaining soccer. This 
was incontrovertibly proved by the fact that our spectator base increased by over 10 fold 
after he took over. 
The petitioner's leading role as coach 
teams will be addressed below under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Because separate criteria exist for original contributions of major significance in the field and 
performing in a leading role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, USCIS clearly 
does not view these criteria as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render 
meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a 
petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Although the petitioner's teams may have enjoyed 
success in league competition, there is no evidence showing that his work equates to original 
athletic contributions of major significance in the field. 
states that he is "a soccer Sports Analyst/Presenter for Africa's biggest TV sports 
channel, Super Sport" and that he "was a member of the successful England World Cup winning 
further states: 
[The petitioner] began his career as a top-level athlete, and then used that grounding to 
become one of the best soccer coaches that South Africa has produced. Our paths crossed 
as opposing coaches of highly respected National Professional Soccer teams, namely 
Wits University and Hellenic in the then top South African Soccer League. 
[The petitioner] was of course originally a great player, but built on that to rise to the 
pinnacle of the coaching profession such that, over time, he became respected nationally 
in that capacity as one of a handful of South Africa's best soccer coaches. By way of 
example, [the petitioner's] coaching was vital in one of South Africa's top attackers, Mark 
Williams not only being selected to represent South Africa's national team for several 
years, but also making a name for himself in the tough European soccer league. 
[The petitioner's] success as a coach has been sustained and ongoing. It comes as no 
surprise, given the length of his career and his sustained success, that he has now been 
awarded a prestigious Advanced Coaching credential by one of soccer's most esteemed 
organizations, the Union of European Football Associations ('UEFA'). 
_ asserts that the petitioner's "success as a coach has been sustained and ongoing," but 
the submitted documentation does not support this conclusion. There is no documentary 
evidence of the petitioner's original contributions or achievements as a coach of soccer players or 
teams subsequent to 1990. As previously discussed, the petitioner's UEFA B-License is a 
training qualification issued upon his completion of coursework in 2007 rather than an original 
athletic contribution of major significance in the field of soccer coaching. 
a former player for the South African national soccer team, states: 
I was fortunate enough to be coached by [the petitioner] during my time at Hellenic 
Football Club. Hellenic was a very successful and feared team, one of the best in the 
highest level soccer league in South Africa, the National Professional League. Coaching 
at that elite level of the sport, [the petitioner] was unparalleled in his ability to equip and 
motivate players to perform at their maximum ability. His prior career as a top player 
himself, coupled with the empathetic but tough and confident manner in which he'd 
impart his knowledge and skill for the game, left an indelible mark on my career and on 
those of the other players on the teams he coached. He was a master tactician who spent 
hours teaching me the art of ball control and when and how to use my speed to torment 
defenses around the world. The knowledge I was lucky enough to have learned from him 
regarding my positioning and intuitive feel for how to be in the right place at the right 
time enabled me to reach great heights. Largely because of [the petitioner], I became one 
of the most prolific goal scorers in the South African Professional Soccer League for 
many years and that success led in tum to my being recruited to play at the highest levels 
of English soccer too. I have, in the succeeding years, been coached by many of the finest 
coaches in the world, and I can say as an expert that none were better than the 
extraordinary [petitioner]. 
While the record reflects that the petitioner enjoyed success as a soccer coach in South Africa in 
the 1980s, there is no evidence showing that his work equates to original athletic contributions of 
major significance in the field. _ does not explain how the petitioner's coaching 
contributions were "original" in the sport of soccer or how they have significantly impacted his 
field. 
Page 13 
The preceding letters of support submitted by the petitioner describe him as a talented and 
successful coach in South Africa during the 1980s, but they do not specify exactly what his 
original contributions in the sport of soccer have been, nor is there an explanation indicating how 
any such contributions were of major significance in his field. It is not enough to be a talented 
coach and to have others attest to that talent. An alien must have demonstrably impacted his 
field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We 
must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some 
meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of his references, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that he has made original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. 
For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other coaches 
throughout the sport, nor does it show the field as a whole has specifically changed as a result of 
his work. 
The preceding reference letters are not without weight and have been considered above. 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). USeIS 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 "fact"). 
Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters 
solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, 
independent evidence that one would expect of a soccer coach who has made original 
contributions of "major significance." Without extensive documentation showing that the 
petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major significance in his field, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. Additional deficiencies pertaining to the preceding 
evidence will be addressed below in our final merits determination regarding whether the submitted 
evidence is commensurate with "sustained national or international acclaim" as of the petition's 
filing date. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets 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 submitted three reference letters as evidence for this regulatory criterion. 
Africa, states: 
I had the privilege of working together with [the petitioner] in coaching The School's first 
Soccer team in 200617, thereby assisting [the petitioner] in the practical sessions he 
Page 14 
needed to comp 
issued to him by 
. ..... . s UEF A B Advanced Coaching Licence 
Obviously knowing his background, not only as a highly skilled and successful 
international professional soccer player, but also as a respected Head Coach of one of our 
biggest Professional Clubs of that time, namely Hellenic Football Club made this 
partnership exciting and interesting for both the players and myself. The coaching 
sessions were not only enjoyable, but we all learned a great deal from been [sic] taught 
by this former professional coach and South African soccer player, who reached the 
pinnacle of his career in South Africa during the days of isolation by the rest of the world. 
There is no evidence (such as competitive statistics or published material) showing that the 
first soccer team had a distinguished reputation. Further, we note 
the petitioner, was the team's head coach. The petitioner has not established 
that performing "the practical sessions he needed to complete" to receive his UEF A B Coaching 
License equates to a leading or critical role for of youth players. 
states: 
I am ... last years [sic] Champions 
of The South African Professional Soccer League. I hold a UEF A A Soccer Coaching 
License, obtained through The FAin England and have been coaching at this level for the 
passed [sic] 15 years. I have also previously assisted and advised the South African 
National Soccer team. 
I strongly believe that [the petitioner] would be a tremendous asset to any soccer club in 
any country; not only because of his coaching ability, but because of the vast experience 
he has of playing International and National Soccer at the top level for many years. This 
was endorsed by The FA inviting him to be part of The UEFA B License Course reserved 
only for Senior ex Professional Players. Here he rubbed shoulders with other 
International players of World class ability, narnelly 
[The petitioner] passed this course with 
License in 2007 by knowing _ highly 
successful background, having both played with him and been coached by him whilst 
playing for Hellenic Football Cub, a top Professional Club in Cape Town at the time, I 
can only say that I would have no hesitation in appointing him to my coaching staff as I 
know other coaches and players would benefit hugely from his experienced input. 
OpiltleS that the petitioner "would be a tremendous asset to any soccer club in any 
country" and that he "would have no hesitation in appointing" the petitioner to his coaching staff. 
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 potential developments in the petitioner's career in this proceeding. 
Page 15 
states that he is a "former Manchester United (10 years and 373 matches) and 
England goalkeeper (1986 world cup squad)" and a soccer commentatorlhost for the Supersport 
television channel in South Africa. _ further states: 
My association with [the petitioner] goes back to school days, when as 16/17 year olds 
we played together in Cape Town City's reserve team (one of the top professional clubs 
in the country at the time). [The petitioner's] exceptional soccer talent then, was 
rewarded when my fathe~the then head coach of Cape Town City offered him a 
Professional contract at the age of 16, making him one of the youngest professionals in 
the country. His rare talent was further shown when he was chosen to represent the 
Senior South African Currie team also at the age of 16. Due to apartheid and sanctions 
unfortunately Internationals were then not allowed, however [the had the 
opportunity of playing against an England great such as the legendary 
[The petitioner's] professional career in South Africa blossomed as he became a ''"I,U''''' 
First team player and thereby the to and 
International players of the calibre of to 
name a few. Due to various reasons soccer in SA in the early eighties became very 
disorganized, with breakaway leagues and poor administration, however this was when 
[the petitioner's] greatest soccer achievement was to be accomplished. 
realized he had exceptional talent, offering him a fully Professional contract allowing him 
the opportunity of playing Professional Soccer in the German Bundesliga and having the 
~~l(. ~<! of . . all time greats of soccer like ••• IiI •••••• 
On his return to SA, his soccer coaching ability, 
val.JUlial skills was realized and was thus employed by 
Hellenic FC (one of the top Cape Town Professional clubs at the time) as player coach. 
Although he was not involved in active soccer for a long period of time, his extraordinary 
ability in understanding the dynamics surrounding soccer coaching allowed him to be 
awarded his prestigious UEF A B Licence soccer coaching badge from the Football 
Association in London in 2007, having successfully completed an intensive practical plus 
theory course and exams .... 
[Emphasis added.] 
While the petitioner "successfully completed an intensive practical plus theory course and 
exams" for his UEFA B License in 2007, earning this credential does not equate to evidence that 
he has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has 
performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished soccer team subsequent to the 1980s. 
The director found that "[t]he petitioner's coaching in the late 1980s was a leading or critical role, 
and the teams had distinguished reputations." We concur with the director's determination that 
the petitioner's coaching role for distinguished soccer teams in the 1980s meets the plain 
language requirements of this regulatory criterion. However, a significant deficiency regarding 
this evidence will be addressed below in our final merits determination regarding whether the 
submitted evidence is commensurate with "sustained national or international acclaim" as of the 
petition's filing date. 
Page 16 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). A 
final merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
B. 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)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 
596 FJd at 1119·20. 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), (iii), (v), and (viii). 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner has received any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence as a soccer player or coach subsequent to the 1980s. The statute and 
regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or international acclaim 
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.S(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) is not 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim in his sport as of the filing date of 
the petition. Further, with regard to the petitioner's UEFA B-License, information about FA 
Learning courses at TheF A.com indicates that the FA offers far more advanced courses such as 
the "UEFA A License" (Level 4) and the "UEFA" Pro License (Level 5).5 We cannot ignore 
staternellt indicating that he holds a UEF A A Soccer Coaching License reflecting a 
higher level of achievement than that of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner's UEFA B­
License from 2007 is not evidence that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(2). 
In regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner has had material about him since the 1980s. 
Further, we note that the the petitioner do not discuss 
his work coaching players or soccer teams in the 1990s or 2000s. Rather, both articles state that 
the petitioner retired from the sport in the late 1980s and has since been employed in the 
financial services industry. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to 
demonstrate that his national or international acclaim as a coach has been sustained. See section 
5 See http://www.thefa.com/GetintoFootball/FALearningj FALeamingPages/ResidentialCourses, accessed on 
December 17,2010, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 17 
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). The 
documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is not commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim in his sport as of the filing date of the petition. 
Regarding the documentation for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), there is no documentary evidence of 
the petitioner's original athletic contributions of major significance in his sport subsequent to the 
1980s. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national 
or international acclaim 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). The documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as of the 
filing date of the petition. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitIOner 
submitted evidence showing that he last performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished 
soccer teams in the late 1980s. There is no documentary evidence indicating that the petitioner has 
performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization subsequent to the 1980s. The 
statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or 
international acclaim in his sport has been sustained. See section 203(b)(I )(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim 
as of the filing date of the petition. 
While the petitioner has earned the respect and admiration of his references, the evidence of 
record falls short of demonstrating his sustained national or international acclaim as a player or 
coach during the nineteen years immediately preceding the petition's July 15, 2009 filing date. 
USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Maller of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 
1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. Likewise, it does not follow that a financial services consultant who 
has not been employed as a soccer coach since the 1980s should necessarily qualify for an 
extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. In this case, the record does not include 
evidence of the petitioner'S nationally or internationally acclaimed achievements and recognition 
in his sport subsequent to the 1980s. Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his 
national or international acclaim as a player or coach has been sustained as of the filing date of the 
petition. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements in the last two decades set him significantly above almost all others in 
his field at a national qr international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Page 18 
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). 
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 appeal is dismissed.