dismissed EB-1A Case: Tennis Coaching

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cleady unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBUccopy 
DATEWAR 1 3 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
"'" 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on July 20, 2010, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained 
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)(1)(A)(i) of the Act 
and 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, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
through (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 claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Expertise in the United States 
The AAO notes here that in Part 5 of Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the 
petitioner listed his occupation as a "Professional Tennis Instructor." In addition, in Part 6, the 
petitioner listed his proposed as a "Professional Tennis Instructor." Moreover, the 
petitioner submitted a letter from Twin Oaks Tennis 
Academy, offering the petitioner the position as a coach for the academy. Thus, the record 
reflects that the petitioner is seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as an 
instructor or coach rather than as a competitor. Even though the petitioner submitted 
documentation regarding his involvement in earlier tournaments as a competitor, which will be 
discussed later in this decision, the record reflects the petitioner's intent to work in the United 
.. States as a coach. 
The statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained 
and that he seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See sections 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. §§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a tennis coach and a tennis player share knowledge of the sport, 
the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, tennis instruction and tennis competition 
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: 
Page 3 
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 or that he intends to compete here in the United States. 
While the AAO acknowledges the possibility of an alien's extraordinary claim in more than one 
field, such as tennis competition and tennis instruction, the petitioner, however, must 
demonstrate "by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in 
the area of expertise." See the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(S). 
Based on the petitioner's answers to the questions on Form 1-140 and the submitted 
documentation, the record reflects that the petitioner intends to continue to work in the area of 
tennis coaching rather than the area of tennis competition. Ultimately, the petitioner must satisfy 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) through his achievements as a tennis instructor or coach. 
II. 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 
Page 4 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101
st 
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.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.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, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 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. § 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:' !d. at 1121-22. 
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)." Id. 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 matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did 
not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
1 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. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
Page 5 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. On 
appeal, counsel claims: 
The Service failed to recognize the importance of the Petitioner's achievement in 
tennis competitions in the national and international arena. The Petitioner has 
participated in several important international tennis competitions, including the 
Banana Bowl, the International Junior Championships of Venezuela, and the 
Reebok Cup. 
The plain language ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 [emphasis added]." For this criterion, the petitioner's documentation and 
counsel's arguments on appeal are related to tennis tournaments as a competitor rather than as an 
instructor or coach. Therefore, any prizes or awards that may have been garnered as a 
competitor are not within the petitioner's field of endeavor as a tennis coach. See Lee v. l.N.S., 
237 F. Supp. 2d at 914 (upholding a finding that competitive athletics and coaching are not 
within the same area of expertise). Moreover, the petitioner does not claim, nor does the record 
of proceeding reflect, that the petitioner has ever received any nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence as a tennis coach. 
The AAO notes that the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner as a tennis player 
simply reflects evidence that the petitioner competed in various matches within tournaments but 
do not reflect that the petitioner actually won any of the tournaments, let alone that he received 
any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. For example, while 
the petitioner competed at the 1998 Banana Bowl, the petitioner lost in the first round. Merely 
competing in a tournament, even winning a single match within a tournament, is insufficient to 
meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion without evidence that the petitioner has 
received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. 
As discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically 
requires that the petitioner demonstrate his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in his field. In this case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that 
he has received any prizes or awards as a tennis instructor or coach, let alone nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
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. 
Page 6 
In the director's decision, he detennined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner's membership with the United States 
Professional Tennis Association (US PTA) and as a member of the Venezuelan team that 
participated in the Davis Cup demonstrates the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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." 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 
detenninative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
Regarding USPT A, a review of 
letter, dated May 6, 2009, from 
_ who stated that the petitioner "became an applicant member on April 23, 2009" and 
"attended the Certification Exam in Ocala, Fla., on May 3 [2009]." In addition, the petitioner 
submitted a copy of another certification exam indicating that it was administered on February 
15,2010, in which the petitioner achieved a "Professional 3" rating. However, the petition was 
filed on March 20, 2008. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. Therefore, the 
AAO will not consider the petitioner's membership with USPT A to establish his eligibility for 
this criterion. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'} 
Comm'r 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 USCIS 
cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 
176. Nonetheless, the petitioner submitted a document reflecting an overview of the USPT A 
certification process. A Professional 3 rating is the lowest level of professional-level 
certification by USPTA. Moreover, Professional 3 is entry level compared to Professional 1, 
which is the most advanced. The AAO is not persuaded that passing a standardized examination 
is tantamount to outstanding achievements, as it is not judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields. Even if Professional 1 reflected outstanding 
achievements, which the AAO clearly does not imply, the petitioner's USPTA certification 
rating is Professional 3 - a level entry certification. Clearly, when compared to a Professional 1 
rating, a Professional 3 rating does not reflect outstanding achievements. 
Regarding the petitioner's membership with the Venezuelan national team that competed in the 
Davis Cup, a review of the record of . reflects that the petitioner submitted a letter, 
dated October 24, 1995, from to the petitioner's parents who 
stated: 
Page 7 
The Venezuelan Tennis Federation is pleased to inform that you your son: 
[the petitioner] 
Has been selected because of his competitive prowess to be part of the pre­
selection for the: 
Davis Cup - 96 
The first round in which we will compete against Canada will be played From 
February 9 to 11, 1996 in Venezuela. We would like to have [the petitioner] join 
us for training on those days; it will be directed by Pedro Posada. 
On appeal, counsel claims that "[t]he Petitioner was also a member of the Venezuelan team that 
participated in the Davis Cup. . .. Therefore, being invited as a member of a country's team 
implies recognition of outstanding achievement at a national level, at the very least." At the 
outset, as the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires 
"[d]ocumentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification 
is sought [emphasis added]," the petitioner's purported participation in the 1996 Davis Cup was 
based as a tennis player rather than in his field as a tennis coach. See Lee v. l.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 
2d at 914 (upholding a finding that competitive athletics and coaching are not within the same 
area of expertise). Regardless, the letter from _ fails to establish that t~ 
competed in the 1996 Davis Cup for the Venezuelan Tennis Federation. Instead,~ 
indicated that the petitioner was "pre-select[ed]" to join them for "training" during the team's 
competition against Canada. There is no indication that the petitioner actually competed for the 
Venezuelan Tennis Federation in the 1996 Davis Cup. Furthermore, while an alien's 
participation as a member of a national team may demonstrate eligibility for this criterion as such 
teams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous selection process, it is the 
petitioner's burden, however, to demonstrate that he meets every element of a given criterion, 
including that he is a member of a team that requires outstanding achievements of its members as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their fields or disciplines. The AAO 
will not presume that every national "team" is sufficiently exclusive. 
The AAO notes that while counsel did not address or claim these additional memberships on 
appeal, counsel previously claimed the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion based on his 
membership with the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and the Professional Tennis 
Registry (PTR). Although the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence 
demonstrating that he is a member of USTA and PTR, the screenshots from their respective 
websites submitted by the petitioner do not reflect the membership requirements, so as to 
establish that outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts, are required for membership with USTA or PTR. Instead, the screenshots only reflect 
background information and the missions of the associations. 
Page 8 
As discussed, the petitIOner cannot meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) by simply submitting documentary evidence reflecting his memberships with 
aSSOCiatIOns. It is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for every element of this 
criterion. In this case, the petitioner failed to establish that his memberships with any of the 
associations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he 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 
classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. The 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]ublished 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." In general, in order for published 
material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To 
qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular 
locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike 
small local community papers? Purthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(iii) requires that "[ s ]uch evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the 
material, and any necessary translation." 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitIOner submitted several articles, 
including photographs with captions, which mentioned the petitioner as a tennis player. 
However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence reflecting published material 
about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to his work in 
the field as a tennis coach. See Lee v. I.N.S., 237 P. Supp. 2d at 914 (upholding a finding that 
competitive athletics and coaching are not within the same area of expertise ). 
Notwithstanding, the AAO notes that counsel submitted numerous articles from El Siglo and El 
Aragueno with summary translations that were certified by counsel. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103 .2(b) provides in pertinent part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator 
3 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 9 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he 
or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English [emphasis 
added]. 
As cited above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § l03.2(b)(3) specifically requires that any foreign 
language document that is submitted to USCIS must be accompanied by a full and certified 
English language translation. Counsel's summary translations do not comply with the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Regardless, the summary translations, as well as the other articles, 
refer to the petitioner as a tennis player rather than a tennis coach. In fact, the articles are merely 
brief snippets that mention the petitioner as participating in tournaments and do not even reflect 
published material about the petitioner as a tennis player. 
Moreover, counsel claims: 
Regarding the significance of these newspapers [El Siglo and El Aragueno] in the 
Petitioner's home country, [USCIS] should note that, while the Petitioner has no 
access to specific numerical information about their circulation or distribution, 
these are the two of the four most important newspapers in the State of Aragua. 
Furthermore, both newspapers have online editions, which the adjudicator can 
easily verify and which gives them unlimited readership exposure. 
Regarding counsel's assertion that El Siglo and El Aragueno are two of the four most important 
newspapers in the State of Aragua, counsel failed to submit or refer to any documentary evidence 
to support his assertions. The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not 
evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 
183, 188-89 n.6 (1984). Further, the AAO is not persuaded that articles posted on the Internet 
from a printed publication or from an organization are automatically considered major media. 
The petitioner failed to submit independent, objective evidence establishing that the websites are 
considered major media. In today's world, many newspapers, regardless of size and distribution, 
post at least some of their stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to render the 
"major media" requirement meaningless. However, the AAO is not persuaded that international 
accessibility by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given website is "major media." 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p ]ublished 
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." In this case, the petitioner's 
documentary evidence fails to reflect any published material about the petitioner as a tennis 
coach in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Page 10 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel claims the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion based solely on 
the petitioner's role with the Buttonwood Tennis Club (BTC). Specifically, counsel claimed: 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from 
Stuart, Florida, as evidence of his employment as the Head Coach of this 
institution. In its letter of denial [USCIS] states that in his letter--... 
"thanked [the Petitioner] for his presence and participation in~ 
[USCIS] ignored a much more compelling comment by ting that 
"[BTC] feel[ s] that your presence at the tournament and participation in the 
singles and doubles events plays an important role in promoting our tournament 
and drawing the type of positive attention that we seek." This statement clearly 
demonstrates that the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for this 
organization. 
As a tennis academy, [BTC] is an organization with a distinguished reputation in 
the United States as well as abroad, as evidenced by the numerous listings that are 
returned upon a Google search of its name. The adjudicator may very easily 
confirm this fact. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)( viii) requires "[ e ]vidence that the 
alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a 
critical role is one in which the alien was responsible for the success or standing of the 
organization or establishment. 
According to letter that was referenced by counsel, the petitioner participated 
as a tennis player in BTC's annual tennis exhibition. There is no evidence indicating that the 
petitioner participated as a tennis coach or instructor. See Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914 
(upholding a finding that competitive athletics and coaching are not within the same area of 
expertise). Nevertheless, the AAO is not persuaded that periodic, sporadic, or annual 
participation at the athletic club's exhibition demonstrates that the petitioner performed in a 
leading or critical role for BTC as a whole consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence, for 
example, that distinguished his participation from the other tennis players, so as to establish that 
his role was leading or critical. 
Regarding the distinguished reputation of BTC, counsel failed to submit "the numerous listings 
that are returned upon a Google search of its name." The unsupported statements of counsel on 
appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See 
INS v. Ph inpathya , 464 U.S. at 188-89 n.6. Regardless, the AAO is not persuaded that the 
number of listings from an Internet search engine, such as Google, establishes that an 
establishment or organization has a distinguished reputation. Generally, search engines search 
Page 11 
documents on the Internet and return a list of documents where keywords are found; they do not 
necessarily demonstrate the distinguished reputation of an establishment or organization. 
Even if the petitioner were to submit supporting documentary evidence showing that his role 
with BTC meets the elements of this criterion, which he has not, section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires leading or critical 
roles in more than one organization or establishment. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. 
When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so 
as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form 
of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has 
meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret 
significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. 
USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. 
Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). In the 
case here, on appeal, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion based on his 
role with one organization or establishment - BTC. 
The AAO notes that at the initial filing of the petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility 
for this criterion based on his co . of various tennis players and submitted screenshots from 
However, according to the screenshots, the petitIOner IS not 
listed as the coach for any of these tennis players. In fact, _ is listed as the coach for 
.~~:~~::::::=:: is listed as the coach for . s listed as 
the coach fo 
listed as the coach for is listed as the coach for 
The record contains no e has ever coached any of these 
individuals. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will 
not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 
(BIA 1980). The petitioner did submit sufficient documentary evidence to show that he has 
coached a junior player, However, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(viii) requires that the petitioner's leading or critical role be for "organizations or 
establishments." The coaching of individual tennis players does not equate to the plain language 
of "organizations" or "establishments." 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence 
that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation." The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he meets every 
Page 12 
element of this criterion. Without documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation, the AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits deterrnination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
4 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 
145. In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 
2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 
460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to 
decide visa petitions). 
Page 13 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.