dismissed EB-1A Case: Squash

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 15255769 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 26, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a social and racquet sports club, seeks classification for the Beneficiary as an alien of 
extraordinary ability as a squash coach. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference classification makes immigrant visas 
available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary met the initial evidence requirement for this classification through receipt 
of a major , internationally recognized award or by meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act make s visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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 
exten sive 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. 
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." 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner currently employs the Beneficiary as a squash professional and instructor. 1 The record 
shows that the Beneficiary competed as a squash athlete on the ~-------------~ World Tour from 2007 to 2013, and since 2008 has participated as a squash coach in Qatar, South 
Africa, and the United States. The Petitioner indicates that it intends to continue its employment of 
the Beneficiary as a squash coach. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Beneficiary did not meet any of the 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the 
Beneficiary meets five of the evidentiary criteria. 2 After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, 
we partially disagree with the Director and find that she meets one of the evidentiary criteria. 
However, we agree that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies the initial 
evidence requirement for this classification, and that she does not qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
1 The record indicates that she is employed pursuant to 0-1 nonimmigrant status, valid through August 31, 2021. 
2 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 or on motion. See Matter of 
Soriano, 19 l&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). We will therefore 
not consider this newly submitted evidence in our decision. 
2 
The plain language of this criterion sets forth several elements which the Petitioner must establish in 
order to successfully show that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. First, it must be shown that she 
received a prize or award. Second, that prize or award must have been given to the Beneficiary for 
her excellence in the field for which she claim eligibility. Third, the Petitioner must show that the 
prize or award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
In his decision, the Director concluded that while the record includes award certificates, it did not 
include sufficient evidence to show that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized. He 
also noted that official rankings do not constitute evidence of prizes or awards. 
On appeal, the Petitioner lists evidence which refers to several of the Beneficiary's accomplishments 
as a squash player, some of which constitute prizes or awards and others which do not. For example, 
this list refers to articles appearing in The Peninsula, a newspaper distributed in Qatar, which mention 
that the Beneficiary will play in upcoming tournaments and is sponsored by local companies, but do 
not mention her receipt of an award. Similarly, selection for a particular team, such as the 
Beneficiary's selection to the University Sport I I team and thel I I I provincial squad, is certainly an accomplishment, but the evidence does not show 
that the certificates given to commemorate these accomplishments are themselves prizes or awards. 3 
However, the evidence of the Beneficiary's membership on the I I provincial squash 
team also shows that that team won a number ofl I tournaments, which later became 
known as thel I Interprovincial Team Championship. The Petitioner submitted certificates 
and photographs which show her membership on the team in 2015, 2018 and 2019, and a letter from 
the Chairman of.__ ________ __,confirms her membership on the team for 13 ears since 
2002. He also writes that the Beneficiary helped the.__ _____ _. team win the six 
times, which is corroborated in part by an article from thesquashsite.com covering the 2019.___~ 
I I Interprovincials which indicates that the team was victorious seven times in the past decade. 
In addition a 2007 article posted to the website gsport.co.za indicates that I I won the 
I :1 in 2002 and 2003. Together, this evidence demonstrates that as one of five members of 
the.__ _____ .,.... squad for the Interprovincial Team Championship, the Beneficiary received 
awards for excellence in her field. Further, as the evidence indicates that the Interprovincial Team 
Championship is the top national tournament for squash teams in I l it is a nationally 
recognized award in the field. Therefore, we disagree with the Director and conclude that the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
In order to meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must show that the individual was a 
member of an association within their field of expertise, that membership required outstanding 
3 We note that the Petitioner's brief characterizes the evidence of the Beneficiary's membership on the~I ____ _ 
squad as i I National Team annual selection," but the evidence does not show that she was selected as a 
national team member. In any event, selection for a team does not constitute an award for purposes of this criterion. 
3 
achievements, and that those making the membership determination were themselves national or 
internal experts in their field. 
The Petitioner, in its initial filing as well as in response to the Director's RFE, contended that the 
Beneficiary's membership on several teams and employment with squash clubs allow her to meet this 
criterion. The Director concluded that most of these "are not germane to this criterion," but did not 
provide an explanation for this conclusion. On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts these claims, and refers 
to evidence in the record which it claims supports them. Also, for each association membership 
claimed by the Petitioner, it lists as "outstanding achievements" the Beneficiary's selection for 
membership and her subsequent accomplishments as a member. However, this criterion calls for 
evidence of outstanding achievements as a requirement for membership, and therefore focuses on 
achievements judged to be outstanding that occurred prior to acceptance as a member. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's membership in thec=J, this is confirmed in a letter from the association's 
tour director, which also states that she achieved a ranking of 53rd on thec=J World Tour in October 
2011. Another letter, from th~' s chief executive officer, goes into greater detail in describing the 
~ World Tour, including several levels of tournaments and membership. Although the letters 
confirm that the Beneficiary was a "world member," competed in the World Championships, and 
reached the quarter final round in three tournaments, they do not describe the requirements for a world 
member or indicate that they are reviewed by recognized squash experts. 
The Benerciary'ls position on teams including the I IInter}rovincial Championship 
squad, the student squash team and the University of1._ ____ ___,women's squash team is 
also supported by reference letters. While we disagree with the Director's conclusion that these 
memberships are "not germane," this evidence does not demonstrate that her membership on these 
teams meets the requirements of this criterion. Regarding the[ I team, a letter from the coach of 
the 2004 team on which the Beneficiary played states that she was one of four women from alll I 
I I universities selected for the team, which toured I I However, the letter does not 
indicate· the criteria for selection or who made the selection, and other letters referenced in the 
Petitioner's brief simply confirm her membership and were not written by those with first-hand 
knowledge. 
Similarly, a letter from the chairman of~....,.....-.,-----,-----,--,--~ corrfirms the Ben,7iary'sll 
membership on thel lteam, and explains that the results from tournaments in the 
league are considered and the five best players selected. As with the evidence regarding the 
team, the letter does not specify any outstanding achievements required for membership, and does not 
indicate that those making the selection for this provincial team are recognized as national or 
international experts. 
The Petitioner also refers to letters pertaining to the Benefici~ployment as a squash coach and 
professional with squash clubs and training facilities such as L__JAcademy and The Country Club 
I I We first note that the criterion requires evidence of "membership in associations," 
which has a "different meaning than "employment." In addition, while the writers of these letters 
indicate that the Beneficiary was well-qualified to fill these roles due to her experience as a squash 
competitor and coach, they do not establish that they required achievements beyond those of any other 
employer seeking to hire the most qualified job candidate. 
4 
Lastly, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's selections as a coach for the .... l _____ _. 
I I andl I meet the requirements of this criterion. In support of its claim of 
the Beneficiary's selection as a regional coach byl l the Petitioner refers to a letter from this 
organization's president and chief executive officer dated August 12, 2020 and submitted on appeal. 
However, as previously noted, 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 or on motion. 4 
As for the Beneficiary's position as a coach for the0 the record includes a letter from .... l __ _. 
I lthe organization's former technical secretary, which confirms that she accepted this position 
in 2014 and began recr~iting "t etes to build a team. A lthoughl I notes that she was the first 
female squash coach i which was important in allowing women to learn and play squash in 
the coyn~rv,ke letter does not establish that the Beneficiary's membership or employment as a coach 
for th as based upon outstanding achievements. 
Based upon the above analysis, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In order to meet this criterion, the evidence must establish that material was published, that it was 
about the Beneficiary and her work as a squash athlete or coach, and that the medium in which it was 
published is a professional, major trade or other major medium. 
Here, the Petitioner submitted several articles which are about the Beneficiary and her work as a 
squash athlete or coach. Two such articles were published in The Peninsula, datedl I 2008 
an~ l -2009, while a third article about her in this newspaper does not include a date. Other 
articles in the record about the Beneficiary were published in Woman magazine inl I 2010 and 
Abode magazine. While the Petitioner submitted additional articles, the majority of these briefly 
mentioned the Beneficiary in reporting upon squash competitions in which she participated, and thus 
were about the competitions and not her. Also, one article which was posted on the website 
www.gsport.co.za with the tag "Personal Account" does not list an author and appears to have been 
written by the Beneficiary. 
As to whether the media which published articles about the Beneficiary were one of the qualifying 
types under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted evidence from those publications' websites and 
those of the publishing companies. This evidence states that The Peninsula is an English-language 
daily newspaper published and distributed inl I and boasted the "3rd best news website in the 
Middle East in 2017." We note that the evidence does not indicate the source of this claim, and that 
4 See Matter of Soriano, 19 l&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
5 
both articles about the Beneficiary were published well before 2017. This evidence is therefore not 
sufficient to establish that The Peninsula qualifies as a major medium. 
Regarding the article published in Woman, the Petitioner submitted information about Gulf Times, 
another English-language newspaper and publishing company inl I from its website. This 
evidence provides information about the history of the company and r,ublication, and includes that 
statement that it "is th~~-----------------~" However, we need not rely 
on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. 
CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self-serving assertions on 
the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliable evidence of major media.) In 
addition, neither the article nor the evidence regarding the newspaper verifies the claimed relationship 
between it and Woman, the publication in which the article appeared. 
Finally, the Petitioner provided information which indicates that Abode has been in publication since 
2011 and is based inl I However, this evidence does not include circulation figures or other 
data that establishes that Abode qualifies as a major medium. 
After review and for the reasons described above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
To successfully establish that an individual meets this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrat that the 
role played for an organization with a distinguished reputation was either leading or critical. If a 
leading role, the evidence must establish that the individual is ( or was) a leader. A title, with 
appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is ( or was), in fact, leading. On the other 
hand, if the role is claimed to be critical, the evidence must establish that the individual has contributed 
in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's 
activities. A supporting role may be considered "critical" if the individual's performance in the role is 
(or was) important in that way. It is not the title of the individual's role, but rather their performance 
in the role that determines whether the role is ( or was) critical. 5 
On appeal, the Petitioner first focuses on the Beneficia 's role with the 
I I inl I A reference letter from=====~::-==-=--==~-=--·L....w_h_o_st-a-te_s_t_h_a_t-sh_e_w_a_s_i......1n 
charge of the Female Multisport Skill Development program at===~-' states that the Beneficiary was 
"a critical part of the development of the first national female squash team id I" She indicates 
that the Beneficia~art of the first team of female coaches ( one of six) hired to develop a sports 
skills program foiL__J girls, which introduced girls to sports. I _ I farther indicates that 
the Beneficiary oversaw the Talent Center where she selected athletes forl Is female sports 
teams, and wrote the squash coach program and trained other staff to implement it. 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFAf) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
6 
The Beneficiary's role atl I is also confirmed in two letters fro~ I a 
highly-ranked squash player froltj lwho trained atl I and a letter fro~ I 
former technical expert for the.__ ________ _. As further evidence of the criticality of the 
Beneficiary's role at I , ) an article written bJ other I I employees notes that its Talent 
Identification Programme is "the foundation of the l's success." Considered together, this 
evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary played a critical role at I I 
As to the reputation ofi I the Petitioner refers to information on its website. Although the website 
boasts that "By 2020, we will be recognized as the world's leading sports academy in the development 
of youth athletes," an~ I writes thatl I "is regarded as a beacon of excellence in sports 
and education," these statements are not sufficient to establish its reputation in the broader field of 
sports training institutions. 
In addition, when responding to the Director's request for evidence RFE the Petitioner submitted an 
article posted on the website bleacherreport.com titled 
~---~~ Although the article is very compliment .... a-ry-to-........ _-_ -_ -_ -_:-s_t_a-ti_n_g_t_h_a_t -it-"h_a_s-ri-s-en_t_o_t_h~e 
forefront ofleading sporting centres around the world," we note that the article's author is listed as 
I I' and that it was previously featured on a blog site. As the source and affiliation of the author 
of this material is not identified, it does not establish that those outside of th~ I organization hold 
it in high regard. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary's role in its own organization is a leading one. In his 
decision, the Director noted that the letters from the Petitioner's general manager and director of 
squash did not distinguish the Beneficiary from other coaches in its organization or otherwise show 
her overall influence on the Petitioner's organization. On appeal, the Petitioner highlights certain 
passages in these and other letters. In the case of the general manager's letter, these passages concern 
the importance of hiring "highest world caliber" squash coaches like the Beneficiary to maintain the 
club's reputation, and that she meets this standard through her previous coaching experience. 
Similarly, the letter from the Petitioner's director of squash describes the Beneficiary's qualifications, 
and that she has helped to raise the rankings of junior athletes who train at the club. She also describes 
the Beneficiary as "an incredible asset to our. .. coaching team" and states that junior players are 
benefitting from her expertise. However, neither letter indicates that she holds a leadership position 
in the Petitioner's organization, but is instead a member of its coaching team. As to whether the 
Beneficiary plays a critical role for the Petitioner, these letters indicate that she has helped junior 
players to raise their rankings, but do not demonstrate that any specific contributions she made were 
of significant importance to the Petitioner's overall operations. Although the employment of coaches 
in general is important to a racquet club and facility such as the Petitioner, this evidence does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's performance as a coach was critical to its success. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts on afrpeal that the Beneficiary also plays a leading role forl I 
as a regional coach for thel region. However, as previously noted, we will not consider new 
evidence on appeal where the Petitioner has previously been afforded an opportunity to submit 
evidence. In addition, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration 
benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
7 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
In his decision, the Director concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
salary of $79,194 in 2019 was high when compared to other coaches. He specifically focused on the 
salary data provided from the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) 
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and noted that they did not show the salaries earned by top 
squash coaches inl I or the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
evidence obtained from these sources, as well as from the CareerOneStop website. Because evidence 
from these sources was previously submitted and is publicly available, we will consider this new 
evidence. 
As the evidence reflects the salary paid to the Beneficiary by the Petitioner in 2019, the appropriate 
basis for comparison is with other coaches in I I in that year. While there is a slight 
disparity in the average wage reported from these sources, with a range between $48,090 and $58,400, 
the 75th and 90th percentile wages are consistently shown as $73,640 and $100,730, respectively. 
Although this evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary's 2019 salary was above average, it is not 
sufficient to establish that it was high in relation to other coaches inl I Therefore, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) states that if the evidentiary criteria do not readily apply to 
the individual's occupation, comparable evidence may be submitted to establish eligibility. On appeal, 
the Petitioner refers to articles in the record about the role of sports coaches in general, as well as 
letters concerning the impact of the Beneficiary's coaching on her students, and concludes that their 
accomplishments serve as evidence of her "rating/standing in the field." However, the regulation 
allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily apply to the Beneficiary's 
occupation. 6 A petitioner should explain why it has not submitted evidence that would satisfy at least 
three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence it has included is 
"comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 7 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown why it cannot offer evidence that meets at least three of the criteria. 
The fact that the Petitioner did not provide documentation that fulfills at least three is not evidence 
that a squash coach could not do so. As discussed, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary meets 
five of the ten evidentiary criteria. In addition, the Petitioner did not show that coaches cannot present 
evidence relating to the other criteria. As such, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is 
eligible to meet additional criteria through the submission of comparable evidence. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
7 Id. 
8 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary enjoys the acclaim and recognition required for the 
classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of the Beneficiary's work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that she is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9