dismissed EB-1A Case: Table Tennis

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: AUG 24 2012 
IN RE: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
u.s. ncpartment of Homeland Sccurit~ 
l),S Cili/cll<.;hip <llld IIT1Jlligr,l1itlll Scn iCl''­
Administrative Ap[)l',Ii" (Jilin: (AA()) 
20 Massachu:-,cll" I\VI.: .. N,W .. MS 2()\)() 
Wa~hinglOn, 1)( 2()52IJ-20')() 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant to Section 
203(h)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, R U.s.C § 1153(h)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your casco All (d' the documenh 
related to this matter have heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Plcase hc advised thaL 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have addiLional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-29013, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 CF.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please he aware that 8 CF.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 
30 days of the uecision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~1L-,::.-
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Ollice 
www.uscis.goy 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on November 1,2011. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on December 2, 2011. The appeal will be dismissed. 
On the Form 1-140 petition, part Ii, the petitioner indicated that he sought classification as an "alicn 
of extraordinary ahility" as table tennis athlete, pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), In counsel's brief filed in support of the 
petition, counsel also referenced the petitioner's accomplishments as "a leading table tennis teacher 
and skills trainer," i.e., a table tennis coach. The director determined that the petitioner has not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as 
an alien of extraordinary ability as an athlete or coach, While the petitioner initially submitted some 
evidence relating to his intent to continue working as an athlete, the director concluded, based on all 
the evidence, that the petitioner intended to work as a coach, 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present '"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)( I )(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204,5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award, Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel docs not contest the director's detennination that the petitioner does not qualil:, 
as an athlete 01' extraordinary ability or the director's determination that the petitioller intends to 
work as a coach. Therefore counsel has abandoned those issues. Sepulveda v. L'l1iled SWles All >. 
(Jell" 401 F.3d l221i, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 20(5); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CY-273l2011, 2011 WL 
4711885 at *1. 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiffs 
claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Instead, counsel asserts 
that the petitioner has demonstrated extraordinary ability as a coach. Counsel submits a brief and a 
number of documents. Counsel asserts that the petitioner meets the nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R, § 204.5(h)(3)(i); the published 
material about the alien criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R, § 204.5(h)(3)(iii); the original 
contributions of major significance criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v); and 
the leading and critical role criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established his eligibility 
for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
submitted qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field and he has 
Page 3 
not sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2). (3). Accordingly. the 
AAO must dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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 arc 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. 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high 
standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 
IOlst Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term 
""extraordinary ability"" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement, that is a major, internationally 
recognized award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed uncler 
this classification. Kazariall v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20lO). Although the court upheld 
the AAO's decision to dcny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while uscrs may have raised legitimate 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary rC4uircmcnts 
heyond Ihose sci forlh in Ihe rcguialions al8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
Page 4 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination," Kazarian, 596 Ljd at 1121-
n 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that ··the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)." and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazaria/l, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this case, the AAO affirms the 
director's finding that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting three types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and has not 
demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the sport of table 
tennis or has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criterii 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor by 
presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In 
this case, the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the rccipient of a 
major, internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such. the 
petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to mect the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentarion ojthe alien '.I' 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). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion because (1) the petitioner's students 
achieved competitive success in table tennis, (2) the petitioner has 
been a coach for which was named the table tennis club of the 
the United States Association of Table Tennis (USATT) Magazine in January 2008, and (3) 
••• was named the 2008 development coach of the year by 
_ Counsel concedes in the appellate brief that the petitioner "did not win these awards 
personally." "did not earn these awards on his own, nor was he named as the specific winner of the 
2 Counsel does not claim that the petitioner meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discus~cd in this decision. 
Page 5 
award[s]," but asserts that USC IS credits the petitioner with awards his employer wins if attributable 
to the petitioner. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence 
of the petitioner"s "receipt"' of qualifying awards or prizes. USCIS may not utilize novel substantive 
or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1221, 
citing Love Korean Church v. ChertoJf, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2008). Regardless, counsel is 
not persuasive that an award issued to a named individual in recognition of' that individual's work is 
comparable to an award issued to an entity in recognition of an employee's work. 
Based on the evidence, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met this criterion. First, although 
the petitioner has shown that_ has achieved competitive success in table tennis, he has not 
shown that competitive success constitutes the petitioner's receipt of nationally or 
internat prizes or awards for excellence. a November 20 II online 
printout from tabletennis.teamusa. the petitioner is listed as one 
Moreover, according to father's August 18, 201 I '0 ffi,.1 0'''; trains with 
the petitioner before the petitioner is not primary coach. 
Furthermore, according to the July 8, 2011 World Journal newspaper article, "LJSTT Open Chinese 
Captured 2 Championships, is the petitioner's "tlll'lner student" 
record is inconsistent as relating to association with_ 
As the petItIoner has provided inconsistent documents, "it is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile the 
conflicting accounts [or evidence], absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, 
in fact, lies, will not sunice." Matter oj Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner 
has provided no such evidence to explain or reconcile the inconsistent evidence. 
Second, although the petitioner has shown that _ has achieved success III 
table tennis in the twelve and younger age groups, he has not shown that competitive 
success within the youth age groups constitutes the petitioner's receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. According to a November 20 II online 
printout from tabletennis.teamusa.org, the petitioner is listed as one two coaches. 
Moreover, as noted in counsel's appellate brief and in the November 2011 USATT Ratings Ilistory 
Page,_is ranked eighty-two among United States female table tennis players. Even if the 
AAO were to attribute __ ranking to the petitioner's coaching ability, it would 
nonetheless find that the ~ot met this criterion, as the petitioner has not shown that a 
national ranking of eighty-two constitutes a lesser national or international recognized pnzes or 
awards for excellence. 
Third, the AAO cannot find that the 2008 development coach of the year award, presented 
constitutes an award to the petitioner. ~ to 
Table Tennis Club, "even though _ has not given [the petitionerJ formal 
credit, [the petitioner] is largely responsible [for] the success of_and is why _ has 
been so successful." Neither_ nor any other evidence in the record est~t the 
petitioner can be deemed to have received the 2008 development coach of the year award, when the 
award was presented to __ alone. Moreover, the petitioner has not provided sufficient 
Page 6 
evidence, i.e. documents relating to the nomination and/or selection process, to show that the award 
constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the sport of table 
tennis. 
Finally, when the petitioner initially filed the petition in February 2011, counsel claimed that the 
petitioner also meets this criterion based on awards he received as an athlete. On appeal, however. 
counsel has not continued to maintain that those awards establish that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. As such, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not 
timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 47111>1>5 at "9. 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not presented documentation of his receipt of 
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See I> C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field jiJr which elas.liti'calion is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged bv recognized 
nutional or illlemational experts in their disciplines or fields. I> C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
When the petitioner initially filed the petition in February 2011, he claimed to meet this criterion as a 
member of the International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF) and the USA TT. On appeal, however, 
counsel has not continued to maintain that the petitioner meets this criterion. As such. the AAO 
concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. 
SepUlveda, 401 F.3d at 122t1 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL47111>85 at *9. 
Published material about the alien in professional or majo/' trade publications or OIher major 
media, relatillg to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and allIhor of the material, and any necessary trallslatioll. I> C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeals, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion. In his appellate brief, counsel 
points to the following articles as supporting evidence: 
(I) A July tI, 2011 
Champion"; 
(2) A July tI, 2011 
Captured 2 C 
(3) A July 9, 2011 
Championship Again." 
entitled "Champion Coach Shaping his Second US 
•••••••• "USTT Open Chinese 
entitled 
Based on the evidence, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met this criterion. First, the AAO 
declines to consider all three articles, because they were published in July 2011, months after the 
petitioner filed the petition on February 28, 2011. It is well established that the petitioner must 
demonstrate eligibility for the petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); 
Matter ofKatighak. 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that Sillg Tao Daily, World Journal or /:'poch Timn constitute 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner's evidence relating to 
the publications is from the publications themselves. Such self-promotional evidence has minimal 
evidentiary value. See Braga v. POll los, No. CY 06-5105 SJO 10 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2(07), a/rd, 
2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 20(9) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). The petitioner 
has not supported the self-promotional evidence with independent and objective evidence, including 
distribution and circulation data, showing that the publications constitute major media. Moreover, 
the AAO declines to consider the wikipedia articles on the publications, as there arc no assurances 
about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site.Y See Bada.WI I'. Mukase.l'. 
540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 20(8). Furthermore, even if the publications are popular Chinese­
American newspapers, the petitioner has not shown that publications not published in a predominant 
national language constitute major media. 
Finally, when the petitioner initially filed the petition in February 2011, he provided other 
documents to show he meets this criterion. On appeal, however, counsel has not continued to 
maintain that those documents establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. As such, the AAO 
concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. 
Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; H ristoI', 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not presented evidence of published material 
about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to his work in 
the field for which classification is sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 c:.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
, Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer entitled "WlKtPEDIA MAKES NO 
GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY": 
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a vo!unlilry 
association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource 0\ 
human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet 
connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has 
necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with 
complete, accurate or reliable information . 
. \Vikipcdia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The 
con ten! of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered 
by someone whose opinion docs not correspond with the state of knowledge in the 
relevant fields .... 
See hup://en.wikipcdia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimcr, accessed on August 19, 2012, a copy of which i<; 
incorporated into the record of procecding. 
Page ti 
Evidence oj (he alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or hllsilless-re/aled 
co/JIrihllliol1s of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that meets this criterion because (1) the petitioner has 
coached and and (2) the petitioner has coached and trained at _ 
Counsel concludes in his appe that the petitioner "has had a significance impact on the 
field of Table Tennis. He has specifically coached two young athletes that are now among the best 
in the United States and his original coaching methods and dedication to his athletes and the sport 
have allowed th. to grow into the best Table Tennis club in the United States." 
Based on the evidence, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met this criterion. First, the 
evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner uses any "original coaching methods." 
_ tiuher stated in his August 18. 2011 affidavit that the petitioner assisted in 
competitive success . level of athletic skill and his natural ability as a high leve 
coach." and taught "how to read her opponent and to utilize different styks and 
techniques to defeat opponent. father stated in his August 10. 2011 letter that the 
petitioner "has developed a unique method on how to apply the best practices 
from China to the young players in the U.S." and he "understands his students well. and can 
motivate them to achieve their maximum potentials." Neither the affidavit nor the letter discusses, 
or even mentions. any "original coach methods," as stated in counsel's bricL Indeed, although the 
evidence shows that the petitioner is an able coach, the evidence is insufficient to show that his 
training methods constitutes original contributions of major significance in the sport of table tennis. 
Second, the evidence does not establish that the petitioner's involvement with th~ named the 
"Best Club of the Year" by USA TT Magazine in January 'nal contributions of 
major significance in the sport of table tennis. According to 
_the . "is largely responsible [for] the suc:ce~;s 
" According to 
"'[iJn 2008 [the petitioner] was one of the first full time 
coaches and trainers _which co with _ being named club of the year in 200S. [The 
petitioner] was also a member of_eague team and was instrumental in the growth and 
success of_both in its competitions with two national championsh and with the club's abili ' 
to attract other athletes such as " According to 
the petitioner competed as a member of 
,.1L,IVJII"1 Table Tennis League Championships. According 
the petitioner is "one of the top athletes and has brought a major amount of attention to 
the_ The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of an 
original contribution of major significance in the field, not to an organization. Neither counsel's 
brief nor any evidence in the record, however, explains how the petitioner's involvement with_ 
including competitive successes and employment as a coach, constitutes original contributions of 
major significance in the sport of table tennis. 
Moreover, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not he 
disregarded simply because it is "self-serving:' See, e.g., Matter ofS-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328. I.B2 
(B[A 20(0) (citing cases). The Board has also held, however, "[w]e not only encourage, but require 
the introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. [I' 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need fi.lr the petitioner 
to submit corroborative evidence. Malter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BlA 1998). Vague, solicited 
letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 20(9), affd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10).4 The opinions of 
experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. Sel' Maller of Caron 
Int'I, 191&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the tinal determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as 
this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 20(8) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give 
less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Malter of Treasllre 
Crap of Calij(mJia , 14 [&N Dec. at 190). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fl'din 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aifd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1'i'iO); 
Avyr Associate.l, Ine. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. Ill, 
1997). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Ille. v. United 
Slates All y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The petitioner has also failed to submit 
sufficient corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could 
have bolstered the weight of the refercnce letters. 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not presented evidence of his original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the sport of 
table tennis. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
4 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "Ietters from physics profcS5or~ attesting to [the 
alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 5l)b F.3J al 1122 
Page 10 
Evidence that the alien has perjiJrmed in a leading or critical role Fir organizations or 
estahlishments that have a distinguished reputatiol1. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion because he has performed in a 
leading or critical role for the _ tennis team. Specifically, counsel states, "Ithe petitioner] 
has been an integral part in the success of this elite Table Tennis team and has been a major 
component in their national championship wins in 2009 and 2010." 
Based on the evidence, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not shown to have performed in either a 
leading or critical role for the_tennis team. To establish a leading role, the petitioner 
should provide evidence relating not only to his title but also his duties within the _table tennis 
team. To establish a critical role, the petitioner should provide evidence relating to his impact on the 
_ table tennis team as a whole. The petitioner, however, has not submitted an organization chart 
demonstrating how his role fits within the hierarchy of the_ tennis team. In fact, as the 
director pointed out in his November 1, 2011 decision, the petitioner has provided no documentation 
from the_tating that he has performed in any role, let alone in a leading or critical role, for the 
organization or establishment. 
Moreover, although the evidence shows that the petitioner competed as an athlete with the .team 
and that the team won the 2009 and 2010 U.S. National Table Tennis League Championships, the 
evidence is insufficient to show that his role as a competitor for the team constitutes either a leading 
or critical role for the team. Counsel states in his appellate brief that the petitioner was one of 
twenty-one_athletes who competed in 2009, and that he was one of an unspecified number of 
_athletes who competed in 2010. The record, however, lacks evidence on what specifically the 
petitioner's contributions were to the team during the two years. In short, a person's role as an 
athlete on a winning team that in 2009 had over twenty athletes of varying abilities and levels of 
contributions is insufficient to establish that he has performed in either a leading or critical role for 
the team. 
Furthermore, although the evidence shows that the petitioner worked as a coach for the _ 
tennis team, the evidence is insufficient to show that his role as a coach constitutes either a leading 
or critical role for the team. Specifically, the petitioner has not provided any ini(lfmation on the 
number of coaches_ hired, or whether the petitioner's duties were the same or substantially 
similarly to those performed by any other coaches. In short, the AAO cannot conclude that the 
petitioner's role as a coach, even one who worked with promising young athletes, in it club with 
unspecific number of coaches sufficient to establish that he has performed in either a leading or 
critical role for the team. 
Finally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the 
petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments, in the 
plural, that have a distinguished reputation. This requirement is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. As such, even if 
the AAO were to conclude that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for •••• 
Page 11 
table tennis team. the AAO would not find that the petitioner has met this criterion because the 
evidence fails to show that he has performed in a similar role for a second organization or 
establishment that has a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not presented evidence that he has pcr!(lfITIed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
j(Jr services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In his November 1,2011 decision, the director found that the evidence does not establish that the 
petitioner has met this criterion. On appeal, counsel has not challenged the director's adverse 
finding. As such. the AAO concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not 
timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 40 I F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at''). 
If the ahow standards do not readily apply to the heneficiary's occupation, Ihe pelitionel' mal' 
suhmit comparahle evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)( 4). 
In his November I, 20 II decision, the director found that the petitioner has not established his 
eligibility for the petition through comparable evidence. On appeal, counsel has not challenged the 
director's adverse finding. As such, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, 
as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711SS5 
at ., lJ. 
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 have 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: (I) a 
"level or expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the 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 CF.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.' Rather. the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kuwriull. 
S9h F.3d 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 2LJ I 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. 
:' The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See So/tane v. Uniled Stale:) Dep', o/.Juslice, .3,s1 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2(04). 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 II/SO INA 
§§ 103(a)(I). 2l14(b); DIIS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 20(3); B C.f.R. § 2.1 (2t1m); ~ C1'.R. 
§ 103.1 (1)(3 )(iii) (20m); Mllller ofAllrelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USUS. is 
the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).