dismissed EB-1A Case: Tennis Coach

identifLing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PuJ3LlC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Offce of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
APR 1 4 2010 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
tj 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally 
decided your case by filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion 
must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required 
by 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
/$L!xdfid Perry Rhew 
chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on July 25, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification 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 as a tennis coach. The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation 
of her sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, 
our assessment of the evidentiary criteria as well as the merits evaluation of the evidence 
submitted, which addresses the significance of the evidence submitted under the necessary three 
criteria, leads us to conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated the necessary national or 
international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 55 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 9 204.5(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 criteria that call for the 
submission of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. $8 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). Through the 
submission of required initial evidence, at least three of the ten regulatory criteria must be 
satisfied for an alien to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 
We note here that at the time of the original filing of the petition, as well as at the time of the 
filing of the appeal, counsel sought classification for the petitioner as a "Coach for Top Juniors 
Tennis Players." However, we will not narrow the petitioner's field to coaching top junior tennis 
players, rather than to the field of coaching tennis players as a whole. 
In addition, aside from her activities as a tennis coach, the record includes evidence showing that 
the ~etitioner competed in urofessional tennis tournaments until 2004. In fact, the petitioner 
30. Subsequent to 2004, there is no evidence indicating that the petitioner has remained active as 
a tennis competitor at the national or international level. The statute and regulations require the 
petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained and that she seeks to continue work in 
her area of expertise in the United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 55 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a tennis 
Page 3 
competitor and an instructor certainly share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very 
different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and tennis instruction are not the same 
area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in federal court. In Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. 
Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret 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 in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary 
ability as a baseball player does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in 
all positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or 
coach. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim through 
achievements as a tennis competitor subsequent to 2004 or that she intends to compete here in 
the United States. Further, the evidence is clear that the petitioner intends to work as a tennis 
instructor. 
Further, we note that the petitioner was last admitted to the United States on an 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition on May 12, 2004. However, while USCIS has approved at least one 
0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approval does not 
preclude USCIS 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 USCIS 
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 llept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin 
Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time 
reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant 
petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; 
see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) 
(finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original 
visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
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. at 597. It would be absurd to suggest that 
USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d at 1090. 
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 had approved 
the nonimmigrant petitions 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). 
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, 
(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. 
U.S. 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. 723 101'' 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. Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten criteria. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) 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 allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 
2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with 
the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have 
raised legitimate 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." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's approach 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)." Id. at *6 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the 
corollary to this procedure: 
I 
 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 6 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both 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. 9 204.5(h)(2), and "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. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 53(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if 
qualifying under three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. In 
reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in As the AAO 
maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her 
conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian 
court. See Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals 
on a de novo basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on December 22, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a tennis coach. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as an 
assistant coach with the Rollins College Women's Tennis Teach and as a tennis professional at 
E-Tennis, Inc. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3).* 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognizedprizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, counsel argues: 
In this case, the assigned USCIS TSC adjudicator should have recognized that as 
a coach, [the petitioner] is no longer in an occupation in which individual awards 
of the type issued to players are issue to her. As a basic matter to the concept of 
rankings in any individual competitive sport, the ranking itself is issued for the 
player competitor. Like an award, it is not issued for their coach who, by 
definition, is not directly in the competition but who is directing the efforts of 
those competing. 
* The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 7 
We are not persuaded by counsel's argument that in the field of tennis, coaches are unable to 
receive coaching awards or prizes, aid tennis awards and prizes are reserved only for the 
individual competitors. In fact, the petitioner submitted documentation reflecting that = 
University of Tennessee, won the 2001 WilsonIITA NCAA Division I National 
Coach of the Year for Women; Rollins College, won the 2001 
WilsodIntercolle iate Tennis Assocation (ITA) NCAA Division I1 National Coach of the Year 
for Women; and Iomona-Pitzer Colleges, won the 2001 WilsodITA NCAA 
Division 111 National Coach of the Year for Women. Contrary to counsel's claim, as evidenced 
here, coaching awards for tennis do exist in this field. 
Notwithstanding, we will consider any awards or prizes won by tennis competitors who were 
coached by the petitioner as comparable evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(4). The petitioner submitted declarations from the following individuals regarding 
their rankings from the United States Tennis Association (USTA): 
claimed that her current rank was 38 1 ; 
1: 
 aimed that her rank improved from 154 to 63; 
3. 
 claimed that his rank improved from being unranked to 
1000; 
4. 
 claimed that her rank improved from being unranked to 644; 
5. 
 claimed that her rank improved from unranked to 903; and 
6. 
 claimed that his rank improved from 108 1 to 797. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted USTA rankings from 
 reflecting: 
Generally, tennis competitors' rankings are not evidence of nationally or internationally recognized 
awards or prizes. A tennis player is not awarded a ranking based on placement at a specific 
competition or tournament. Instead, the tennis player's ranking is based on the collective placement 
of finishes at competitions or tournaments over a period time. We find that a tennis player's 
finishes (i.e., first, second, third) in a tournament to be a more determinative finding than the tennis 
player's ranking as it relates to this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor." In this case, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation reflecting that 
the petitioner, or any of her players whom she has coached, has received any nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. While the documentation submitted by 
petitioner suggests that her players have improved in their USTA rankings, these rankings do not 
meet the plain language of the regulation requiring the receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards. Even if we would accept the rankings as evidence of awards and 
prizes, which we clearly do not, the regulation requires that these awards and prizes be for 
excellence. We are not convinced that the highest raked player, 
 at 1 i0, reflects an 
award for excellence in the field of tennis. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the Jield for which 
classijication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or$elds. 
On appeal, the petitioner did not address this criterion or contest the decision of the director. At 
the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner submitted the following 
documentation: 
Three certificates from the Professional Tennis Registry (PTR) reflecting 
that the petitioner "has completed all tests and examinations and qualifies 
for PTR certification of professional" and a member in good standing 
from 2003 - 201 0; 
2008 PTR Membership Handbook; 
PTR Press Release announcing that the certification of the petitioner as a 
professional; 
Certificate of Attendance from PTR for the petitioner's attendance at the 
Teaching Essentials CertzJication; 
Two certificates along with two letters from the United States Racquet 
Stringers Association (USRSA) recognizing the petitioner as a Master 
Racquet Technician (MRT); and 
USRSA News Release announcing that the petitioner is an MRT. 
Regarding PTR, a review of the PTR Membership Handbook reflects the highlighted points 
below: 
In order to become certified by PTR, you must successfully complete a written 
examination and four on-court examinations. 
The written exam tests your knowledge of a standard method of instructing and 
"[tlhe on-court tests examine your ability to demonstrate all the strokes, as well as 
your ability to conduct a class in a real teaching situation. 
The highest rating, that of PROFESSIONAL, is achieved when the applicant 
scores a PROFESSIONAL rating on all portions of the certification test. 
To become a full PTR member, there is a one time non-refundable application 
fee. 
Regarding USRSA, the documentation submitted by the petitioner reflects that in order to 
receive the title of MRT, you must pass each portion of the MRT exam consisting of written, 
racquet evaluation, string removal/grommet replacement, handle sizing and gripping, and 
stringing. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a 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 plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[d]ocumentation of 
the alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields." However, the requirements listed above for 
membership with PRT or USRSA, which includes passing qualifying exams, are not outstanding 
achievements. Other than meeting the minimum qualifying standards, outstanding achievement 
is not a prerequisite for membership in PRT or USRSA. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to 
establish how PRT7s or USRSA7s membership requirements reflect outstanding achievement as 
judged by national or international experts in the field as an essential condition for admission to 
PRT or USRSA. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she 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 
class$cation is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, a~d author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
While the petitioner never claimed eligibility for this criterion at the time of the original filing of 
the petition, a review of the director's decision reflects that he found that the petitioner's 
submission of articles failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. We note that the petitioner 
did not address or contest the decision of the director on appeal. 
The petitioner submitted several articles relating to the petitioner's participation as a player in 
various tournaments. However, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires published material "relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought." In this case, the articles submitted by the petitioner relate to her competing in tennis 
tournaments as a player and not as her current field of coaching. 
Furthermore, the petitioner also submitted three articles regarding the Rollins College Women's 
Tennis Team, as well as three articles mentioning The regulation for this criterion 
requires that the published material be "about" the petitioner relating to her work. However, 
these articles are not about the petitioner but about tennis players from Rollins College and = 
In fact, none of these articles mention the petitioner. The petitioner failed to demonstrate 
published material about her in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to her coaching in tennis. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of a major signiJicance in thejeld. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
In summary of what has already been provided in detail above, [the petitioner's] 
efforts as a tennis coach have produced remarkable results in the performance of 
not only one, but numerous junior's level tennis players. Through individual 
coaching utilizing the expertise, skills and experience that only a true, very 
accomplished, and very competent tennis professional can possess, the 
[petitioner] has transformed each of the noted players into outstanding young 
tennis stars whose rise in the world of tennis is nothing short of extraordinary. 
As in every other competitive sport, the level of interest is only as strong as the 
level of performance. The level of interest, in turn and like in everything else, is 
what ultimately determines the level of financial commitment and support that is 
given to the sport. And the level of financial commitment and support is what 
ultimately determines whether the sport is propagated and flourishes, or not. 
By producing players whose performances has received considerable notice in the 
tennis world, the [petitioner] has significantly contributed to the issue at the very 
forefront of the tennis world. 
In addition, counsel on appeal also submitted an article, Tennis Growth Skyrockets 43 Percent!, 
from ww\v.prneLvsm ire.com which stated: 
According to data just released by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association 
(SGMA), Tennis is the fastest growing sport in America among individual 
traditional sports with an increase in participation of 43% from 2000 to 2008. 
According to the SGMA, tennis was one of only six sports to experience 
participation growth exceeding 40% from 2000 through 2008. Tennis is well 
Page 11 
ahead of other traditional sports like baseball, ice hockey, gymnastics and 
football, all of which suffered a decline in participation during the past eight 
years. In the last year alone (through December 3 1, 2008), Tennis experienced a 
9.6% growth in participation. 
A review of the reference letters submitted on the petitioner's behalf as well as the previously 
mentioned declarations from the six junior tennis players do not provide any specific examples to 
demonstrate how the petitioner's contributions were original and how they significantly 
impacted her field. The declarations from the junior tennis players state in verbatim: 
[The petitioner's] tennis instruction involves a very specific methodology that, 
based on my knowledge of the game, she was able to develop based on her proven 
abilities as a world class tennis player, her very precise understanding of the 
fundamentals and subtleties of the game, and her obvious and unique ability to 
translate her experience and knowledge into a proven teaching technique. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[elvidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." While the declarations from the six junior level tennis players vaguely 
describe the petitioner's "methodology," they fail to specifically identify her original athletic 
contributions. We are simply not persuaded that the petitioner's "very precise understanding of 
the fundamentals and subtleties of the game" rises to the level of original athletic contributions. 
Moreover, any tennis coach, or any athletic coach for that matter, who establishes the knowledge 
and essentials of a sport cannot be said to automatically make original contributions. The 
regulation does not merely require an alien to make contributions to the field but requires those 
contributions to be original. In this case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that she has made 
original contributions of major significance to tennis. 
Notwithstanding the above, while the six junior tennis players claim that their rankings have all 
improved under the tutelage of the petitioner, the record does not reflect, as indicated by counsel, 
that the improvement in the rankings of the petitioner's players had a major impact to the field of 
tennis as whole. Rather, any contributions made by the petitioner reflect contributions restricted 
to the six junior tennis players themselves. Counsel failed to correlate the improvement in the 
rankings of these junior tennis players to the field of tennis as a whole. Moreover, counsel failed 
to establish that the petitioner has significantly impacted the growth of tennis in the United 
States, as suggested in counsel's brief and the submission of the article from 
~~w\~.prnc~vs~virc.co~n, and not just tutored a few junior level tennis players. 
Furthermore, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated October 29, 2008, from USTA 
congratulating the petitioner for her selection to participate in the USTA High Performance 
Coaching Program in Boca Raton, Florida from I. However, the petition was 
filed on December 22, 2008. While the petitioner was selected to participate prior to the filing of 
the petition, the actual event was scheduled after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. Therefore, we will not consider this item as evidence to establish 
Page 12 
the petitioner's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. §$ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 
1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 
1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition." Id at 176. Notwithstanding, the petitioner failed to submit any evidence establishing 
that she attended and completed this program. Furthermore, in any event, while the successful 
completion of this program may provide job skills to be a better coach, the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate how her completion of this program establishes original athletic contributions of a 
major significance in the field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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. Without extensive documentation showing 
that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed, or widely accepted 
throughout her field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A review of the director's decision reflects that he found that the petitioner failed to submit any 
evidence for this criterion. However, a review of the record reflects that the petitioner claimed 
eligibility for this criterion based on her position as an assistant coach at Rollins College and 
- 
submitted letters of recommendation. 
-. - - 
College, stated: 
[The petitioner] has achieved a level of demonstrated performance or standing as 
a tennis coach that, in my opinion, evidences that she is a coach of extraordinary 
talent. 
It was because of [the petitioner's] demonstrated discipline, drive and passion for 
the game that I asked her to be my assistant two years ago. She has a tremendous 
understanding of the game and is highly respected by the Central Florida tennis 
community. 
Moreover, [the petitioner] has been my assistant coach for the past two years. 
During that time, she has instilled confidence in the players and raised the bar of 
excellence. This past season she effectively assisted our program in attaining a 
best ever win-loss record of 23-3, in reaching the 14'~ consecutive appearance in 
the NCAA Championships and the selection of our #I player as an All-American 
in singles. 
[The petitioner's] reputation in Central Florida preceeds [sic] her and she has 
acquired a lot of support in our community. Her knowledge and inarguable talent 
as a coach and player make her an asset to Central Florida. 
I would like to recommend [the petitioner] for any tennis related coaching 
position. In my opinion she is one of the best, if not the best, personal tennis 
coaches in the state of Florida. [The petitioner] is a great player but better coach. 
I have known her for the past eight years and have seen her at work and she is 
always very professional and ethical at what she does. I have seen her on-court 
skills as well as her administrative skills. I am impressed with her knowledge of 
the game of tennis and how she translates that knowledge to all her students. She 
can easily handle groups as well as individuals - young or old. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[elvidence that the 
alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to 
fill and the reputation of the entity that selected her. While the letter from- credited the 
petitioner in assisting the Rollins College's tennis program in attaining the best win-loss record in 
the school's history and reaching the NCAA Championships for the 14~ consecutive time, -1 
failed to indicate that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for the tennis 
program. In fact, - failed to provide any examples detailing the petitioner's job 
responsibilities that directly led to the success or standing of the tennis team. The petitioner has 
failed to establish how her ~osition as assistant coach differentiates her from others at Rollins such 
as the president, athletic director, and even 
 as head coach, so as to establish that she 
erformed a leading or critical role as an assistant coach. Further, while the letters from m. 
f, and 
 highly praise the petitioner for her talent as a former player and current 
coach, the letters do not demonstrate that she performed in a leading or critical role. 
Notwithstanding the above, in order to establish that Rollins College Women's Tennis has a 
"distinguished reputation," the petitioner submitted an article from Rollins College's website 
citing a U.S. News and World Report article ranking Rollins College as number one among 121 
southern master's-level universities. However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation 
establishing that the women's tennis program has a distinguished reputation. As the petitioner is 
claiming eligibility as an assistant coach for the women's tennis program at Rollins College, it is 
the burden of the petitioner to specifically establish the distinguished reputation of the women's 
tennis program and not the distinguished reputation of Rollins College as a whole. While having 
the best-win loss record in the history of the college and reaching the NCAA Championships 14 
Page 14 
times in a row are admirable accomplishments, they do not, however, demonstrate that Rollins 
College Women's Tennis has a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has conzmanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
A review of the director's decision reflects that he found that the petitioner failed to submit any 
evidence for this criterion. However, a review of the record reflects that the petitioner claimed 
eligibility for this criterion based on her salary and submitted various documents. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel claimed: 
In recognition of [the petitioner's] proven ability, performance and potential as a 
Tennis Coach, the remuneration that she receives for her services is significantly 
higher that that received by the majority of those in her field. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of her Form W-2 for 2006 reflecting total wages of $53,91 I, and 
a copy of her Form W-2 for 2007 reflecting total wages of $53,951. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted documentation from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS) reflecting that the median income for coaches and scouts in 2007 is $27,840, with the 9oth 
percentile earning $6 1,320. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires "[elvidence that the 
alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation 
to others in the field." A review of the petitioner's Form W-2s reflects that she was employed by 
. In addition, according to the petitioner's USTA High Performance Coaching Program 
2009, Application for Candidates, the petitioner listed her job title as "tennis professional" and job 
duties as "player development." The documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to reflect that 
her income derived from. was based on her occupation as a tennis professional in 
player development. The record does not reflect that she earned a salary from - as a 
coach. As the regulation requires a comparison of salary "in relation to others in the field," the 
- 
petitioner's salary as a tennis professional cannot be used as a comparison to the salary of coaches. 
Notwithstanding the above, while BLS reflects a median annual wage of $27,840, this wage 
reflects the median for all coaches and scouts. However, according to BLS, the mean wage for 
coaches at colleges, universities, and professional schools reflect an annual mean wage of 
$46,210. Even if we would accept the petitioner's salary as a tennis professional, which we 
clearly do not, we do not find that her salary of approximately $54,000 from . is 
high when compared to the mean wage statistics from BLS. We note that even though the 
petitioner claims to have been employed by Rollins College since August 2007, the petitioner 
failed to submit any documentation reflecting her salary or other remuneration for services from 
Rollins College. There is no evidence establishing that the petitioner has earned a level of 
compensation that places her among the highest paid coaches in tennis. 
Page 15 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Thus, in accordance with the opinion, we must next conduct 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. 5 204.5(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." See section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). See also Kuzuriun, 2010 WL 
725317 at *3. In this case, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
While the petitioner submitted documentation reflecting her involvement with junior level tennis 
players, the petitioner has not demonstrated a "career of acclaimed work in the field as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). We are not persuaded that 
the petitioner's tutelage of young tennis players, such as boys and girls aging from 12 to 16 years of 
age, demonstrates that the petitioner "is one of 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). USCIS has long held that even 
athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Mutter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. 
at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that a coach, such as the petitioner who coaches at the 
college level, should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based 
immigrant visa compared to a tennis coach at the professional level. To find otherwise would 
contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be 
3 
 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of 
Racine, 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. 
111. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(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 USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) is 
reasonable. 
Page 16 
reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of 
endeavor." 
In addition, the petitioner claims eligibility for two of the criteria, original contributions of major 
significance (8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v)) and leading or critical role (8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 
based almost entirely of recommendation letters, which are not sufficient to meet this highly 
restrictive classification. We note that the letters were all from individuals who have worked or 
interacted with the petitioner. We further note that as these letters refer to the petitioner's limited 
regional reputation, they fail to show the requisite national recognition and acclaim. 
 For 
instance,, and based their opinions on the petitioner's 
local reputation in "Orlando," "Central Florida," and the "Southeast." While such letters can 
provide important details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. The statutory requirement that an alien 
have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond 
the alien's immediate acquaintances. 
 See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. 
 The submission of 
letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts in not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS 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 writers' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of any immigration petition are of 
less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of an individual who 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Finally, we cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act 
provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary 
ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 
1991). The petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that she "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field." 
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 petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 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. 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an 
extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a 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 AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see 
also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 199 1). The AAO's de 
novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 
997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.