dismissed EB-1A Case: Table Tennis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-W-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 28,2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a table tennis coach, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
On October 21, 2014, the Petitioner filed a Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. The 
classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals 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 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which requires proof of a one-time achievement or documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief with additional 
materials. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner, as a table tennis 
coach, has not established his eligibility for the classification sought. Specifically, the Petitioner's 
athletic achievements predating the filing of the petition by at least 1 0 years, in combination with his 
experience as a coach, do not meet the requirements of the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
Matter of H-W-
(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). If the Petitioner does not submit this documentation, then 
he must provide at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of a one-time achievement or evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, 
does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 
F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, 
if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits 
determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming our 
proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 
3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) 
(holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" 
and that users examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, 
both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact 
to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A Issue on Appeal 
On the Form I-140, the Petitioner left all of the information blank that referenced his proposed 
employment. Within the initial brief, the Petitioner characterized his area of expertise as table 
tennis. Within the Director's RFE, he notified the Petitioner that coaching and competing in a sport 
are not the same field of endeavor. The Director also indicated that the record lacked materials 
relating to the Petitioner's performance as a coach or trainer. In his RFE response, the Petitioner 
replied that he would serve as a table tennis trainer and coach in the United States. The Petitioner's 
occupation in which he intends to work in the United States is therefore as a table tennis coach or 
trainer. Accordingly, to establish his eligibility for the classification, he must provide sufficient 
evidence showing his extraordinary ability in table tennis pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act, either as an athlete or a coach, and, if as an athlete, that coaching is within his area of expertise 
pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act. The Petitioner has never asserted or documented a 
one-time achievement or that he satisfies three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) as a 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of H- W-
coach. Based on the above, the sole issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has shown 
extraordinary ability as an athlete and whether coaching is within his area of expertise. 
B. Extraordinary Ability 
1. Initial Evidence 
It is not the Petitioner's position that he has a one-time coaching achievement or satisfies three of the 
criteria at 8 C.P.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) as a coach. We acknowledge that within the initial filing 
statement the Petitioner provided a list of his students and their achievements. The Petitioner 's 
assertions alone are not sufficient to meet his burden of proof. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of Cal?fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). In an October 1, 2014, 
letter, stated that the Petitioner began coaching in 1995 as the head coach of the 
men's provincial team and served as the Deputy Director of the Table Tennis and Badminton 
Center of the It is in these positions that maintained 
the Petitioner "successfully train[ ed] a phalanx of world-class table tennis athletes for the 
" including 
Chapter 22.2(i)(l )(A) of the APM provides that a foreign national "who is an Olympic coach whose 
athlete wins an Olympic medal while under [his] principal tutelage would likely constitute evidence 
comparable to that in 8 CPR 204.5(h)(3)(v)," the criterion requiring original contribution of major 
significance. The Petitioner offered several statements from his former and current students, and the 
Table Tennis and Badminton Center of the These submissions 
noted that he was a "supervisor" and/or coach for certain athletes. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated, or asserted, that any of the athletes he has supervised, trained or coached won an 
Olympic medal or had competitive successes similarly to winning an Olympic medal. In addition, 
the reference letters do not show that the athletes were under his principal tutelage, such that the 
Petitioner was their primary coach or trainer, when they won any major and internationally 
recognized competitions. The March 3, 2015, letter from the 
reflected that he served as the Table Tennis and Badminton Center's Deputy Director from 2002 
through 2012. The record does not demonstrate that during this period, he also worked as a coach or 
trainer. On appeal, the Petitioner does not offer any evidence or discussion relating to his student's 
success or confirm that they achieved any success under his principal tutelage. As such, the 
Petitioner has not shown that, as a table tennis coach or trainer, he meets the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
204.5(h)(3)(v). Even had the Petitioner proved he met the original contributions of major 
significance criterion, he did not satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) through his achievements as a coach. 
Rather than rely on his coaching accomplishments, the Petitioner asserts that he received a major, 
internationally recognized award as an athlete. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The regulation, consistent 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of H- W-
with the statutory legislative history, states that a one-time achievement must be a major, 
internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even lesser internationally 
recognized awards could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which a foreign 
national must meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the 
example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the 
nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). While an internationally recognized award could 
conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, the example 
given by Congress indicates that the award must be internationally recognized in the foreign 
national's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
The Petitioner asserts his following achievements as one-time major, internationally recognized 
awards: (1) world champion in the men's team event at the 
in 1987; (2) a second place finish in the men's team event at the m 
1991; and (3) a third place finish in the men's team event at the m 
1994. According to Technical Director of the 
are on a 
par with the competltwn and together they constitute the 
highest-level table tennis competitions in the entire world and make up two of the 
trinity of major competitions sponsored or hosted by the 
Information from website provided that the trophies, including the 
which is "presented to the winners of the Men's Team event at each 
' are "the highest tributes to excellence" in table tennis. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits photographs showing that his name had been inscribed on the for winning 
the men's team event at the The record also consists of various online 
documents, such as materials from the and the 
verifying the Petitioner's competitive achievements at the 
and Accordingly, the Petitioner, as a 
table tennis player, has demonstrated a one-time achievement, that is a major, internationally 
recognized award. 
2. Final Merits Determination 
The next step is 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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. Chapter 22.2(i)(l)(E) of the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) 
4 
(b)(6)
. ' 
Matter of H- W-
explains that while there is no definitive time frame on what constitutes "sustained," users should 
determine whether the foreign national continues to maintain a comparable level of acclaim in the 
field of expertise since the foreign national was originally afforded that recognition. The AFM 
acknowledges that a foreign national "may have achieved national or international acclaim in the 
past but then failed to maintain a comparable level of acclaim thereafter." In this matter, the 
Petitioner's most recent accomplishment predates the filing of the petition by 
approximately 10 years. Accordingly, the initial evidence does not confirm that the Petitioner 
sustained his acclaim as an athlete through the date of filing. 
C. Area of Expertise 
Even if we found that the Petitioner established eligibility as an athlete, because the Petitioner 
intends to work in the United States as a table tennis coach or trainer, he must demonstrate that his 
area of expertise includes coaching. The Director indicated in his decision that the Petitioner had not 
submitted documentation 
relating to his performance as a coach or a trainer. The Director also cited 
to a Federal Court decision on the matter, Lee v. Ziglar , 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002), in 
which the court indicated that users could reasonably interpret that 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 inthat field. The court noted a consistent history in this 
area. 
USCIS has recognized that a nexus exists between playing and coaching a given sport. Chapter 
22.2(i)(l)(C) of the AFM addresses this situation and allows us to consider coaching within an 
individual's area of expertise under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) if he or she coaches national or 
international-level competitors: 
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international 
acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching/managing 
at a national level, adjudicators can consider the totality of the evidence as 
establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that 
we can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of expertise. 
(Emphasis in original.) As the Petitioner has not shown recent athletic achievements, he must 
demonstrate his extraordinary ability separately as a coach under the provisions at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed above, he has not done so. Consequently, the Petitioner has 
not established that he seeks to enter the United States to continue working in his area of expertise. 
§ 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act. 
D. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner, as a table tennis 
coach or trainer, has not submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this case, documentation that 
5 
' ' . , 
Matter of H- W-
satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. He has therefore not demonstrated his eligibility as a 
table tennis coach or trainer of extraordinary ability. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he enjoys sustained acclaim as an athlete, that his athletic achievements are 
sufficiently recent that we will consider his level of coaching, or that his coaching achievements on 
their own meet the evidentiary requirements at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofH-W-, ID# 15284 (AAO Jan. 28, 2016)