dismissed EB-1A Case: Squash

prevent cledy unwarranted 
invasion af pod privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
LIN 06 238 50807 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
P~obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary has earned the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as 
an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary's achievements "have demonstrated national and international 
acclaim" and "have been recognized through extensive documentation." 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this 
section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 3 1, 2006, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a squash professional. At the time of filing, the beneficiary was working for the Hartford Golf Club as an 
Assistant Squash Professional. A July 27, 2006 letter from I, General Manager, Hartford Golf 
Club, states: 
,. - Page 3 
[The beneficiary] will primarily be responsible for assisting the Head Squash Professional with 
teaching, coaching, and instructing the international standard of squash at the highest level to all 
players at the Club at all levels. . . . [The beneficiary] will be expected to promote the club through 
continuing play in local, national, and international squash tournaments and exhibitions. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of 
which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary abgity. A petitioner, however, cannot establish a beneficiary's eligibility for this classification 
merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In 
determining whether the beneficiary meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms 
of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower 
evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a 
level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted information from the internet site of the Professional Squash Association (PSA), the 
organizing and coordinating body for the Men's World Squash Circuit (also known as the PSA World Tour), 
regarding the beneficiary's competitive achievements as a squash player. This information indicates that the 
beneficiary was the "Zambia Open Champion 1992 to 1998," won international tournaments in Kenya in 1998 
and 1999, and achieved a career-high ranking of 77' in the PSA world rankings as of September 2002. A 
February 27, 2007 letter from the Zambia Squash Association confirms that the beneficiary was a "Zambia 
National Champion from 199 1 to 200 1" and further states that he won "the Open Championships of Kenya (4 
times)." While the beneficiary's competitive achievements as a professional squash player in Africa appear to 
meet this regulatory criterion, there is no evidence showing that he has won nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards as a squash player subsequent to 2001.' The statute and regulations, however, 
require the beneficiary's national or international acclaim as a squash professional to be sustained. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Aside from the beneficiary's receipt of awards as a squash player, nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards won by squash teams or players coached directly by him can also be considered for this 
criterion. Here, it is important to evaluate the level at which the beneficiary acts as a coach. A coach who has 
established a successful history of coaching top players who win titles at the national level or above has a 
credible claim under this visa classification; a coach of junior-level or recreational athletes does not. 
For example, the petitioner competed at the Atlanta Squash Open in May 2006, but failed to advance beyond the first 
round. 
- Page 4 
A June 19, 2006 letter from 
 Chairman of the Board and President, United States Squash 
Racquets Association (USSRA), the National Governing Body for the sport of squash in the United States as 
recognized by the U.S. Olympic Committee, states: 
[The beneficiary] has risen to the very top in the field of squash coaches as evidenced through his 
work . . . at the Hartford Golf Club where he now works with young prodigies to help them grow as 
players and individuals, as well as improving the play of experienced adult players. He has been 
developing innovative training programs aimed at the needs of amateur and professional squash 
athletes and imparting his knowledge and expertise on technical, tactical, physical and psychological 
aspects of the game. 
Kenneth Stillman states that the beneficiary has been developing training programs aimed at the needs of 
"professional squash athletes," but there is no evidence identifying the names of any PSA players coached 
directly by the beneficiary and the prizes and awards they have won. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted correspondence from parents at the 
Hartford Golf Club confirming that their children were coached by the beneficiary. The petitioner also 
submitted USSRA national iunior rankings for the beneficiary's players indicating that - 
- - - 
ranked 13'~ among girls under a e 17 as of February 2007, 
 ranked 16" among boys under age 
19 as of April 2004, franked 19" among boys under age 17 as of April 2006 and 7L among 
boys under age 15 as of April 2004, and ranked 3oth among girls under age 17 as of February 
2007 and 54L among girls under age 15 as of April 2006. The preceding USSRA rankings from February 
2007 were issued subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish the eligibility 
at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 
1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the February 2007 USSRA rankings in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence establishing that squash teams or individual players coached by the 
beneficiary have won "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards." Further, with regard to 
prizes or awards won by the beneficiary's players at the junior age-group level, we do not find that such 
evidence indicates 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. $204.5(h)(2). CIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league 
level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg, at 60899.' Likewise, it does not follow that a squash instructor who has had 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent outside of the district in which the case 
arose, we note that in Matter ofRacine, 1995 WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that CIS'S interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 5 
success coaching youth at the junior level should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment- 
based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) 
that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their 
field of endeavor." In this case, there is no evidence showing that squash players under the beneficiary's direct 
tutelage have received nationally or internationally recognized awards at the very top level of his sport (such as an 
award fiom a nationally recognized PSA competition) rather than awards fiom regional or junior-level 
competitions. 
Although the beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion based on the competitions he won in Africa as a player in 
the 1990s, 2000, and 2001, the weight of his evidence is diminished as there is no indication that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim through his or his players' receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards from 2002 to the petition's filing date. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in theJield for which classijication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a July 25, 2006 electronic mail message from the PSA Chief Executive stating that 
the beneficiary has been a member of the PSA since 1998. The message, however, does not specify the 
beneficiary's class of membership. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted 
a document entitled "PSA Membership." This document states: 
The PSA has the following categories of playing membership: 
1. WORLD PLAYING MEMBER 
2. CONTINENTAL PLAYING MEMBER 
3. COUNTRY PLAYING MEMBER 
4. RATINGS PLAYING MEMBER 
5. JUNIOR PLAYING MEMBER 
1. WORLD MEMBER 
A World member is entitled to: 
1.1. Enter PSA sanctioned tournaments and be awarded World Ranking points. 
1.2. A PSA World Ranking position. 
1.3. Receive regular PSA tour calendars, player updates and entry forms for PSA sanctioned 
tournaments and a PSA Tour Guide. 
1.4. Two votes at any meeting of members of the Association. 
1.5. Nominate members for election in accordance with Article 44(b) of the Constitution. 
1.6. Exercise votes on a voting list in accordance with Article 44(e)(i)(A) of the Constitution. 
1.7 A World member may downgrade to a Continental member should his ranking fall below 150. 
1.8. Stand for election to the PSA Board of Directors. 
Further, according to the "PSA Membership" document, Continental, Country, Ratings, and Junior 
membership classes are all entitled to a "PSA World Ranking position." 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included material printed from the PSA's 
internet site showing the beneficiary's "Dunlop PSA World Rankings Player Profile." This PSA profile from 
February 2007 indicated a ranking of 264 for the beneficiary. As all member classes of the PSA are entitled 
to a PSA World Ranking position, it has not been established which class of membership the beneficiary 
holds. 
 Further, we note the membership guideline stating: 
 "A World member may downgrade to a 
Continental member should his ranking fall below 150." Even if the petitioner were to establish that the 
beneficiary is a PSA "World Playing Member," we cannot ignore that World members who fall below 150 
"may downgrade to Continental" at their option and that the beneficiary's PSA ranking ranged from 77" to 
264th. Thus, there is no evidence to conclude that the beneficiary's membership in the PSA required 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
The petitioner submitted the June 19, 2006 letter from 
 as evidence of the beneficiary's 
membership in the USSRA and two letters from the president of the Zambia Squash Association (ZSA) 
confirming his membership in the ZSA. In a "List of Exhibits" submitted in response to the director's request 
for evidence, counsel states that membership in the World Squash Federation (WSF) "is allowed for countries 
that have National Associations of Squash . . . . Zambia and the U.S. are both members . . . making [the 
beneficiary] a member of the WSF organization." The record, however, includes no evidence originating 
from the WSF to support counsel's assertion that the beneficiary is a WSF member. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). The petitioner also submitted general information regarding the USSRA, ZSA, and WSF, 
but there is evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that these 
associations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the beneficiary's field. 
In light of the above, 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 classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the beneficiary and, as stated in 
the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
Page 7 
media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication. 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.3 
The petitioner submitted articles posted on the internet sites of the World Squash Federation, Prince Squash, 
SquashSite.co.uk, SquashColombia.org, SquashPlayer.co.uk, SquashTalk.com, the 2002 Manchester 
Commonwealth Games, The Monitor Online Edition, PA Sport, and Daily Nation. The petitioner also 
submitted articles entitled "Uganda Open due today," "Aces grace squash open," and "Squash aces billed for 
Kenya championships," but the name and date of the publication in which the latter two articles were printed 
were not identified. None of the preceding articles, which only mention the beneficiary's name in passing, 
were primarily about him. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
however, requires the published material to be "about the alien." Further, there is no evidence showing that 
the preceding articles were published in professional or major trade publications or some other form of major 
media. 
The petitioner submitted articles about the beneficiary entitled "Against The Odds" and "[The beneficiary] 
leaves for West Africa," but their authors, the names the publications in which the articles were printed, and 
their dates of publication were not provided. Another article about the beneficiary, entitled "[The beneficiary] 
wins Squash Open," did not include the name of the publication and its date. The petitioner's documentation 
also included an article about the beneficiary entitled "[The beneficiary] still champion," but its author was 
not identified. The petitioner also submitted an article about the beneficiary in The Zambian entitled "[The 
beneficiary] in the semis" (2002). The record, however, includes no evidence showing that the preceding 
articles were published in professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this 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 alliedJield of specijkation for which clmsiJication is sought. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a February 10, 2007 letter from 
, Director of Squash, Stanford University, and Founder and Director of the Talbott Squash 
 cade ern^,^ stating: 
I recognized that [the beneficiary] had the ability to be one of the top coaches and lead at the 
Academy and help our students, so I invited him to be one of the Elite Head Coaches at my squash 
academy. He has coached the top US National Jr. Team players and hundreds of other aspiring young 
players. He was in charge of all aspects of the player's [sic] training and development. 
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. 
4 
 Mr. Talbott states that the Talbott Squash Academy "is the Official National Training Center of the United States 
Squash Racquets Association." 
The petitioner's response also included a February 8,2007 letter from, Associate Professor of 
Physical Education, Trinity College, stating: 
As the Head Coach for the Women's Squash Team, the majority of my time is spent with the team at 
practices, matches, and tournaments. Individual attention sometimes is very difficult for me to 
provide to all players; therefore, [the beneficiary] was an important asset as an assistant coach. Since 
2002, [the beneficiary] has been working at Trinity College as the assistant coach. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner also submitted correspondence from parents at the Hartford Golf Club 
confirming that their children were coached by the beneficiary and the youths' USSRA national junior 
rankings. 
In a February 27, 2007 letter submitted in response to the director's request for evidence, counsel argues that 
the preceding evidence meets this regulatory criterion stating: "By serving as coach for these players and 
organizations, [the beneficiary] directly serves as a judge for others in the sport." The beneficiary's work as a 
squash instructor and coach is not tantamount to his participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in his sport. A squash coach trains athletes for competition by holding practice sessions to 
perform drills and to improve his players' skills and conditioning. Evaluation of players under one's tutelage 
is an inherent duty of squash coaches at all levels of the sport. We cannot conclude that evaluating one's 
players and students in this manner is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of the field. There is no evidence showing that the beneficiary judged the work of others in his field in a 
manner significantly outside the general duties of his coaching positions and consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. Duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in 
the occupation itself, or in a substantial proportion of positions within that occupation. As such, the 
beneficiary's involvement in coaching and instructing various junior and collegiate squash players does not 
fulfill this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the$eld. 
In his February 27, 2007 letter submitted in response to the director's request for evidence, counsel states: 
"[The beneficiary] has provided significant athletic-related contributions for the U.S. because he is training 
and coaching the young players who have a chance of competing successfully on the international arena. . . . 
In the U.S. and Zambia, [the beneficiary] has performed significant contributions . . . ." 
The petitioner submitted a February 6,2007 letter of support from U.S. Men's team coach and 
co-owner of San Diego Squash, Inc., stating: 
[The beneficiary] will substantially benefit the United States because of his international experience 
and success as a player. Because of his international experience, he is one of few able to transfer his 
playing ability to an extraordinary coaching ability and advance the sport in the U.S. He will be able 
to train and coach players who have the potential to compete internationally . . . . 
Page 9 
discusses his future expectations for the beneficiary rather than specifying exactly what his 
original contributions in the sport of squash were or how any such contributions have already had a 
significant impact to the extent that they can be considered contributions of major significance in the field. 
As discussed previously, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 45, 49. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification 
based on the expectation of future eligibility. Id. We acknowledge that the beneficiary is a skilled coach of 
junior squash players in the United States, but there is no evidence showing that he has made original athletic 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner also submitted a February 27, 2007 letter from 
 President, Zambia Squash 
Association, stating: 
[The beneficiary] was a leader of his generation of outstanding players and was instrumental in 
Zambia consistently being rated as number three in Africa behind Egypt and South Africa. At the 
height of his playing career [the beneficiary] was Zambia National Champion from 199 1 to 200 1 and 
represented the country in tournaments throughout Africa and Europe. 
He was a fine ambassador for his country and the sport. Thanks to his pioneering exploits, Zambian 
players still consistently win national "Open" titles in Zimbabwe, Malawi, Botswana and Kenya. 
[The beneficiary] gave a lot back to the sport he has so outstandingly served. He proved to be an 
outstanding coach and was able to pass on his skills, talent and knowledge to the players following 
his footsteps. Despite a lack of funding from government or corporate sources, [the beneficiary] has 
devoted his time (and sometimes his own money) for the development of squash in this country. 
The beneficiary's competitive victories and the awards of the squash players coached by him have previously 
been addressed under the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Here it should be emphasized that the 
regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for awards and 
original contributions of major significance, CIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. If 
evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the 
requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. 
The petitioner submitted additional letters of support, but in the same manner as the preceding letters, none of 
the letters specify exactly what the beneficiary's original contributions in squash were, and they do not 
provide an explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance to his sport. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. The record reflects that the beneficiary has helped various players with their skills 
and conditioning, but there is no evidence showing that he developed original training techniques, as opposed 
to methodologies passed down from his own tutelage in the sport. Further, even if the techniques taught by. 
the beneficiary were found to be original, there is nothing to demonstrate that these techniques have had 
major significance in the sport. For example, there is no evidence to indicate that the beneficiary's techniques 
have been widely adopted throughout the sport or have influenced the way squash is played. While the 
beneficiary may have improved the skills of the players under his tutelage, this does not demonstrate original 
contributions of major significance in the field consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. The 
opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. CIS 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). However, CIS 
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; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See 
id. at 795. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien 
in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of a squash player or coach who has sustained 
national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the beneficiary's work has 
been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his sport, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude 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. 
In order to establish that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of the beneficiary's role 
within the organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
se to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a February 8, 2007 letter from 
stating: 
[The beneficiary] is currently the Assistant Squash Professional at the Club. One of the many important 
roles he has taken on recently is the establishment and management of the Junior Box League. Three 
years ago, the interest in the Junior Box Leagues was very limited. With [the beneficiary's] 
professionalism the [Hartford Golf Club] Junior Box League is the envy of all private clubs in the state of 
Connecticut. 
His role with the Junior Box League is very important to the members of the Club and he has performed 
in a critical role by leading his league. 
Page 11 
The petitioner submitted general information and promotional material for the Hartford Golf Club, but there is no 
evidence showing that its squash program had a distinguished reputation during the beneficiary's employment. 
For example, there is no evidence establishing that its squash 
 for producing players who win 
squash titles in national USSRA or PSA competitions. While 
 indicates that the beneficiary's 
Junior Box League enjoys a local reputation in Connecticut, there is nothing in the record to show that it has 
earned a distinguished reputation in the sport of squash at the national or international level. Regarding the 
position held by the beneficiary at the Hartford Golf Club, there is no evidence demonstrating how his role as 
Assistant Squash Professional differentiated him from others in the club holdin similar ositions (such as the 
club's other sports professionals), let alone more senior management (such as Head Squash 
Professional or, General Manager). According to the beneficiary's "Employment Agreement," 
"the ASSISTANT SQUASH PROFESSIONAL shall be under the supervision and directly responsible to Mick 
Robberds, Head Squash Professional." 
As previously discussed, the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included letters from 
"Director and Head ~echnical Coach" of the Talbott squash Academy, and -, 
"Head Coach for the Women's Squash Team" at Trinity College. As the official National Training Center of 
the USSRA, we acknowledge that the Talbott Squash Academy has a distinguished reputation. According to 
information submitted by the petitioner from the Talbott Squash Academy's internet site, we note that aside 
from its Head Technical Coach, the academy had nine other coaches including the beneficiary. There is no 
evidence demonstrating how the beneficiary's coaching role for the academy differentiated him from the other 
members of the academy's coaching staff or the director. With regard to the reputation of Trinity College's 
squash team, an article posted on the college's internet site states: "The Trinity College men's and women's 
squash teams, both of which have won the last two national intercollegiate titles and have combined for a 63- 
0 record between them during that time, were chosen by Sports Illustrated On Campus as the Most Followed 
Small Sports in all of intercollegiate athletics." While this article is adequate to demonstrate that the Trinity 
College squash team has a distinguished reputation, there is no mention of the beneficiary's role as an 
assistant coach. Rather, the article focuses only on the men's head coach. Paul Assaiante. and the women's 
With regard to the beneficiary's positions with the Hartford Golf Club, Talbott Squash Academy, and Trinity 
College squash team, the evidence submitted by the petitioner is not adequate to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary was responsible for his employers' success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of 
"leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. As such, the petitioner 
has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signlJicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
The July 27, 2006 letter from states: "[The beneficiary's] proposed annual salary is 
approximately $40,000 per year."5 In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted 
a September 2006 "Employment Agreement" stating that the beneficiary was to be paid "the sum of three 
5 
 The Form 1-140 petition also identified the beneficiary's earnings as $40,000. 
Page 12 
hundred and eighty dollars ($380.00) for each weekly period, commencing the day of September 15, 2006."~ 
We note that the salary specified in the beneficiary's contract is less than half of the amount proposed in Mr. 
- 
s July 27, 2006 letter. 
 The petitioner aiso submitted a February 8, 2007 letter from 
stating that upon approval of the 1-140 petition, the beneficiary "will receive a salary of $55,000, which 
includes his base salary and estimated income from private lessons." As discussed previously, a petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 45,49. Subsequent developments in the beneficiary's career, such as a projected future salary increase, cannot 
retroactively establish that he was eligible as of the etition's filing date. Accordingly, the AAO will not, in this 
proceeding, consider the $55,000 salary that expects the beneficiary will someday earn. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included online wage statistics (updated July 1, 
2006) from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center. These prevailing wage statistics showed the median 
earnings of "Coaches and Scouts" for various localities in the United States. For example, the Level 4 Wage 
(fully competent) for coaches and scouts in the Hartford, Connecticut area was $42,240 per year. According to 
the documentation submitted by the petitioner, the beneficiary's salary of $40,000 at the time of filing falls below 
the median wage for fully competent coaches and scouts in the Hartford area. As such, we cannot conclude that 
the beneficiary has commanded a high salary in relation to others in his field. Nevertheless, the prevailing wage 
, 
statistics submitted by the petitioner are not an appropriate basis for comparison. Such prevailing wage data 
offers only local median earnings as a basis for comparison. The petitioner, however, must submit evidence 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's level of compensation places him in that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). In this case, there is no evidence showing 
that the beneficiary earned a salary that places him among the highest paid coaches or players in his sport. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally 
recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we 
reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence 
in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Nor has the 
petitioner submitted evidence showing that the beneficiary has had sustained national or international acclaim 
as a player or coach. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the record includes no evidence of the beneficiary's nationally or internationally 
acclaimed achievements and recognition in the sport of squash subsequent to 2002. 
On appeal, counsel states: "[The beneficiary] has previously been approved for two 0-1 Non-immigrant periods 
of stay as an extraordinary athlete. His most recent 0-1 period of stay was in the identical position as the 1-140 
submission. The Standard of Proof was in fact the same and even more extensive documentary evidence was 
submitted in support of the 1-140." 
- 
6 
 A salary of $380.00 per week amounts to $19,760 per year. 
7 
 There is no evidence (such as U.S. income tax returns or Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statements) reflecting that the 
beneficiary earned a salary of $55,000 as of the petition's filing date. 
While CIS has approved at least two 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of the beneficiary, the prior 
approvals do not preclude CIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased 
standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after CIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See e.g. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US 
v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely 
because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 
1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of 
the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 
122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself as a squash professional to 
such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the beneficiary's achievements 
set him significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.