dismissed EB-1A Case: Swimming Coach

PUBLICCOPV 
DATE: 
MAY 1 5 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(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 he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen with 
the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) 
requires any motion to he filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
cfJ~3~-
Perry Rhew ~,-
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 7 
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner's own awards as a competitor will not be considered in this 
antecedent procedural step, the petitioner has not demonstrated that consideration of comparable 
evidence is appropriate and the petitioner has not submitted evidence that is comparable to the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted pursuant 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii) and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. Within the attachment to the appeal, the petitioner makes 
only passing reference to this issue, asserting that, "The AO [Adjudications Officer] misweighed [sic] 
the evidence and committed error in finding that the applicant's recent evidence and membership on his 
national Olympic Swimming Team and Championship Collegiate Team did not qualify him as a 
swimming coach of extraordinary ability." The AAO has already explained the reasoning behind not 
considering the petitioner's accomplishments as an athlete to establish his eligibility as a coach as he 
has not demonstrated recent acclaim as an athlete. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted pursuant 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. Within the attachment to the appeal, the petitioner makes 
only passing reference to this issue, asserting that, "The AO [Adjudications Officer] misweighed [sic] 
the evidence of published material about the alien in professional or other major media relating to the 
aliens [sic] work in his field of endeavor in the denial of the petition." The AAO has already explained 
the reasoning behind not considering the petitioner's acclaim as an athlete to establish his eligibility as a 
coach as he has not demonstrated recent acclaim as an athlete. The record contains no published 
material about the petitioner relating to his work as a coach that predates the filing of the petition, the 
date as of which the petitioner must establish he eligibility. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
D. Summary 
The petitioner, who has been coaching for several years and seeks to continue coaching, has failed to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence as a coach. 
Page 8 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"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" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the 
office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; 
section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 
C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, 
now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).