dismissed EB-1A Case: Tennis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2025 In Re: 36864183 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a tennis player, requests classification under the employment-based, first-preference 
(EB-1) immigrant visa category as an alien with "extraordinary ability." See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . Successful petitioners for 
U.S. permanent residence in this category must demonstrate "sustained national or international 
acclaim" and extensively document recognition of their achievements in their fields. Section 
203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met two of ten initial evidentiary requirements - one less than needed for a final merits 
determination. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she also submitted evidence of her: 
• Membership in professional associations in the field that require outstanding achievements of 
their members as judged by recognized national or international experts; and 
• Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (viii). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that she has not met the requisite number of evidentiary criteria for the requested 
immigrant visa category. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as an alien with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must: 
• Have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• Seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Through their work, substantially benefit the country prospectively. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" means expertise commensurate with "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). Evidence of 
extraordinary ability must demonstrate an alien's receipt of either "a major, international recognized 
award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary criteria. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 1 
If a petitioner meets either evidentiary standard and the requirements at section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii), (iii) 
of the Act, USCIS must then make a final merits determination. To merit approval, the record- as a 
whole - must establish a petitioner's "sustained national or international acclaim" and recognized 
achievements placing them among the small percentage at their field's very top. See Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying this two-step extraordinary ability analysis); 
see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Facts 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Inative and citizen, became a member of her country's 
national tennis team at a e 11. As a team member, she competed in the I I Garnes, 
Championships, and Cup, earning multiple medals and national championships. At one 
time, she ranked in in the world among junior tennis players, and she has consistently ranked 
within the top five female players in I I She has competed against some of the top players in 
the world, including Iga Swiatek, a winner of multiple grand slam tournaments. 
The Petitioner played collegiate tennis in the United States as both an undergraduate and graduate. 
She states that, if allowed to immigrate to the country, she would continue to compete in national and 
international tournaments. 
The record does not indicate - nor does the Petitioner claim - her receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award. She therefore has to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 
The record supports the Director's findings that the Petitioner submitted evidence of her: 
• Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in her field; 
and 
• Status as a subject of published material about her work in the field. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii). 
We will now review the Director's findings regarding the additional evidentiary criteria that the 
Petitioner claims to have met. To satisfy a requirement, she must submit evidence that "objectively 
1 If an evidentiary criterion does not "readily apply" to a petitioner's occupation, they may submit "comparable evidence" 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
meets the parameters of the [applicable] regulatory description." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8). 
"[N]either USCIS nor [the] AAO [Administrative Appeals Office] may unilaterally impose novel 
substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5." Kazarian, 
596 F .3d at 1121 ( citation omitted). 
B. Membership in Associations 
This criterion requires "[d]ocumentation 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." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner contends that evidence of her membership on the I I national tennis team 
satisfies this criterion. She submitted letters from the national technical director of the I I 
tennis federation and an International Tennis Federation development officer for North and West 
Africa. The letters confirm the Petitioner's I I team membership. They also state that a 
committee selects team members based on their national and international rankings, the results of their 
most recent tournaments, and their standings in the I I tennis federation. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that recognized national or international 
experts judge members of the I I national tennis team. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that, as the organization's "chief executive," the national technical 
director ofthel ltennis federation is "a qualifying national expert in the field." (emphasis 
in original). The record, however, does not provide information about his tennis knowledge/ 
experience, or how he obtained his position. Even if evidence established him as al Itennis 
expert, the record does not identify him ( or anyone else) as a member of the national team's selection 
committee. We therefore affirm the Director's finding of insufficient evidence that recognized 
national or international experts judge I I national team members. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Director failed to follow USCIS policy. She notes that"[ e ]lection 
to a national all-star or Olympic team might serve as comparable evidence for evidence of 
memberships in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8)(1), Comparable 
Evidence. She also cites a 2023 non-precedent decision of ours, stating: 
Given the level of accomplishment required to secure a place on a country's national 
team (which competes at an international level), it appears reasonable to conclude that 
it is the functional equivalent of an association of the type contemplated in the 
regulations. 
USCIS policy, however, did not require the Director to accept the Petitioner's membership on the 
I Inational tennis team as comparable evidence of her membership in a qualifying association. 
The policy states only that election to a national all-star team "might serve as comparable evidence." 
( emphasis added). Also, our non-precedent decision does not bind us in this matter. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(c) (requiring USCIS to follow "precedent" decisions in proceedings involving the same 
issues). 
3 
I 
Further, users considers comparable evidence only if a regulatory criterion does not "readily apply" 
to a petitioner's occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The Petitioner has not demonstrated, or even 
asserted, that the membership criterion does not readily apply to tennis players. See Guida v. Miller, 
No. 20-cv-01471-LB, 2021 WL 568850, *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2021) (affirming USCrS' decision 
that, before the Agency could consider comparable evidence, a petitioning former national team coach 
had to demonstrate that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) did not apply to his occupation); see also 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F .2(B)( l ), Comparable Evidence. 
Thus, the Director did not fail to follow users policy, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
evidentiary criterion's inapplicability to tennis players. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1120 ("The 
regulations regarding this preference classification are extremely restrictive.") ( citation omitted). We 
will therefore affirm the Director's finding regarding this evidentiary criterion. 
C. Performance in a Leading or Critical Role 
To meet this requirement, a petitioner must submit "[e]vidence that the alien has performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
users first determines whether a petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for an 
organization, establishment, or a division or department thereof. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.2(B)(l), Criterion 8. A leading role means that a petitioner is (or was) a leader within the 
organization, establishment, division, or department. Id. In contrast, a critical role means that a 
petitioner "has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization 
or establishment's activities." Id. 
Next, users determines whether the organization or establishment for which a petitioner holds or 
held a leading or critical role has a distinguished reputation. See 6 USC IS Policy Manual F .2(B)(l ), 
Criterion 8. Relative factors include not only an organization's relative size or longevity but also other 
factors such as the scale of its customer base or relevant media coverage. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of her roles on two U.S. university women's tennis teams and the 
Inational team. The Director concluded that she did not establish her role on any team as 
leading or critical. The Director also found insufficient evidence of the claimed distinguished 
reputations of a U.S. university team and the I Inational team. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that evidence of her role on her undergraduate U.S. university team 
meets this criterion. She states that she: holds the team record for most matches won during a three­
year span; had the most wins on the team for two consecutive years; was the youngest team member 
ever named to its league's first team; and won the university's sophomore female athlete of the year 
award. 
A letter from the university's tennis director confirms most of the Petitioner's accomplishments. We 
therefore find that, based on her performance, she had a leadership role on the school's women's tennis 
team. But we agree with the Director that she has not demonstrated the team's possession of a 
distinguished reputation. See Mussarova v. Garland, 562 F Supp. 3d 837, 851-52 (C.D. Cal. 2022) 
4 
(finding that a petitioner did not establish her water polo team's claimed distinguished reputation 
where the record lacked evidence that the team had "any measurable success ... in competition") 
(citation omitted). We will therefore also affirm the Director's finding on this evidentiary criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence of her membership in qualifying associations or her 
performance in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations. Thus, she 
has not met the requisite number of evidentiary criteria for the requested immigrant visa category. We 
will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5