dismissed EB-1A Case: Track And Field Coaching

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
POBLICCOPY 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
MAY 242012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (1\.1\0) 
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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
with the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 
§ I03.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
T~nk you,.l 
"",> "~" t'k - . '~"'-, 
1 
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 November 3,2010, 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 lmmigration 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 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). Furthermore, counsel claims in his brief that the petitioner's documentary evidence 
should be considered as comparable evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that evidence of sustained national or international 
acclaim "shall" include evidence of a one-time achievement or evidence of at least three of the 
following regulation categories. The ten categories in the regulations are designed to cover different 
areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. For example, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) implicitly applies to the visual arts, and the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) 
expressly applies to the performing arts. The AAO further acknowledges that the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(4) provides "[i]f the above standards do not readily apply to the [petitioner's] 
occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the [petitioner's] 
eligibility." It is clear from the use of the word "shall" in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) that the rule, not 
the exception, is that the petitioner must submit evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory 
criteria. Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily 
applicable to his occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective 
evidence required at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In counsel's brief, he does not explain why the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are not 
applicable to the petitioner'S occupation. Instead, counsel simply claims that the regulations allow 
for the submission of comparable evidence. However, the regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for visa 
preference in the petitioner's occupation as a track and field assistant coach cannot be established by 
the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In fact, as indicated in this 
decision, counsel discusses evidence in his brief that specifically addresses four of the ten criteria at 
Page 3 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) that relates to the petitioner's occupation. Further, the director found that the 
petitioner met at least one of the regulatory criteria. An inability to meet a criterion, however, is not 
necessarily evidence that the criterion does not apply to the petitioner's occupation. Moreover, 
although counsel failed to claim these additional criteria, the AAO finds that a track and field 
assistant coach could have published material about him pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and could command a high salary pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Counsel provided no documentation as to why these provisions of the regulation 
would not be appropriate to the profession of a track and field assistant coach. Where an alien is 
simpl y unable to meet or submit documentary evidence of three of these criteria, the plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable 
evidence. In the AAO's analysis of the evidentiary criteria below when comparable evidence is 
claimed, the AAO will determine whether the documentary evidence meets the requirements of the 
plain language of the regulation. 
Moreover, the AAO acknowledges that counsel submitted an additional letter entitled, 
"Supplemental Evidence for Pending Appeal" on February 13,2012. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that "[t)he affected party shall file the complete appeal including any 
supporting brief with the office where the unfavorable decision was made within 30 days after 
service of the decision [emphasis added)." Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) 
provides that "[t)he affected party may make a written request to the [AAO) for additional time to 
submit a brief. The [AAO) may, for good cause shown, allow the affected party additional time to 
submit one [emphasis added)." A review of the record of proceeding reflects that counsel submitted 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, on December 2, 2010, and indicated that a brief and/or 
additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days, which counsel did on January 3, 2011. 
However, as indicated above, counsel submitted supplemental evidence on February 13, 2012, 
which does not comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(i) and (vii). Regardless, the 
documentary evidence in the form of various articles reflects publication dates after the filing of the 
petition on September 9, 2010. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. Therefore, the 
AAO will not consider these items as evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l 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 Izllmmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing 
Matter of Bardollille, 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. 
I. lAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shaH first be made available ... to qualitled 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the foHowing subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
Page 4 
(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 (US CIS) 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
s1 
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 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the pel1tlOner 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 CF.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. USC/S, 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 CF.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." Id. 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 
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. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
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)." /d. 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 langnage 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. /d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criterii 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. The plain langnage of the regnlation at 8 CF.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." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for every element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate his receipt of 
prizes and awards, he must also demonstrate that those prizes and awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. In other words, the petitioner 
must establish that his prizes and awards are recognized nationally or internationally for excellence 
in the field beyond the awarding entities. 
The petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on his receipt of an award from the U.S. 
Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA). While the petitioner 
submitted sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate that the USTFCCCA award is a 
nationally recognized award for excellence in the field, section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act requires 
the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain 
langnage of the regnlation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires more than one nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regnlations at 8 CF.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 singnlar within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 
CF.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 regnlatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld users' ability to interpret significance from whether the 
singnlar or plural is used in a regnlation. See Maramjaya v. USC/S, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
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, the award from USTFCCCA constitutes 
only one nationally or internationally recognized award in which the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires more than one. 
On appeal, counsel claims: 
Regarding the purported award from CSO, counsel claimed: 
As no tangible award is given, a letter confirming these details and [the petitioner's] 
receipt of the award in 2001 is forthcoming from _, though not yet available. 
The record will be supplemented as soon as the letter is received by undersigned 
counsel. 
Regarding the purported award from CFF, counsel claimed: 
As no tangible award is given for this honor, a letter confirming these details is also 
forthcoming from_ and will be submitted as supplemental evidence as soon as 
the letter is received by undersigned counsel. 
As of the date of this decision, including a review of the previously mentioned submission of 
supplemental evidence, counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding the purported 
awards from CSO and CFF. 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). Counsel failed to demonstrate that the petitioner received any awards from 
CSO and CFF, and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field 
consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Moreover, on appeal, counsel claims that "the awards won by the athletes he has coached constitute 
comparable evidence, the submission of which is authorized by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4)" and cites 
two unpublished AAO decisions. While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO 
precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Further, 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. 593,597 (Cornm'r 1988). 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 1084, 
Page 7 
1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). Moreover, the specific facts of those 
cases are not in the record. Without the records, it cannot be determined whether the facts of any 
other cases are similar to those of the present case. Regardless, as previously discussed, counsel 
failed to establ ish that the petitioner is eligible to submit comparable evidence pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Clearly, this criterion applies to the petitioner's occupation as 
the petitioner submitted a qualifying award and counsel claimed two other awards. In addition, as 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires 
"[ d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt [emphasis added]," any awards won by athletes that were 
coached by petitioner do not meet the plain language of this regulation. However, while they will 
not be considered as comparable evidence, they will be considered below as they are relevant to the 
significance of the petitioner's original contributions under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Again, the plain language of the 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." As the petitioner only demonstrated that he received a single nationally 
recognized award for excellence, he failed to meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion that 
requires more than one prize or award. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
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)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original 
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the 
field." Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original athletic­
related contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 
F. 3d 28, 31 (3'ct Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"d Cir. Sep 15,2(03). 
On appeal, counsel claims the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion based on "athletes coached by 
[the petitioner] have succeeded at the highest levels and raised the caliber of competition, thereby 
significantly impacting the sport of track and field." In support of counsel's claims, he refers to 
several recommendation letters and various websites. While the petitioner, through his role as a 
coach, may have contributed to the personal accomplishments of several athletes, the petitioner 
failed to demonstrate that his original contributions have been of major significance in the field as a 
whole. Moreover, the letters provide only general statements without offering any specific 
information to establish how the petitioner's work has been of major significance to his field. 
Furthermore, the letters provide insufficient information to reflect the extent of the petitioner's 
. that she has won '_ 
.. was ranked as the 
Page 8 
Trials." Although _ stated that she has "known [the petitioner] for the past three years" 
and is "currently coached by him," does petitioner for her personal 
accomplishments such as winning four national titles. not indicate when the 
petitioner began his coaching and failed to demonstrate that her success can be traced to the 
petitioner's training. Nonetheless, the ~iled to establish that any contributions that he has 
made to the coaching and training of_have been of major significance in the field as a 
whole. 
~ioner submitted a letter from 
__ who stated that the peti'ti ion'~r's "coacnmg 
clearl y as several world class athletes have reached the peak of their performances under his 
assistance and coaching." While_identified a few athletes who have been coached by the 
petitioner, _ failed to indicate the accomplishments of the athletes, let alone the influence 
or impact that they have had on the field, so as to demonstrate the petitioner's original contributions 
of major significance in the field. There is insufficient information to reflect that the petitioner's 
coaching and training has significantly impacted the field as a whole. 
Likewise, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
provided vague information that does not 
major significance in the field. For ins,tarlce, 
Since the time that [the petitioner] began coaching, he has continued to coach more 
and more of the leading athletes in the world today, including decathletes, 
heptathletes, shot-putters, pole vaulters, jumpers and the like. He has had sustained 
extraordinary athletic coaching accomplishments in the United States and abroad 
during this time, coaching at leading universities in the United States, and coaching 
leading competitors in the world as well including Olympic athletes. I have seen his 
training and fitness techniques and regimens first hand, which are acknowledged to 
be at the forefront of the field today. He is known by leading coaches internationally 
for his accomplishments, continues to write articles in leading track and field 
journals, and has been awarded a national award for his coaching ability 
in the United States when he coached at 
As indicated above, claimed that the petitioner has "sustained extraordinary coaching 
accomplishments" without identitying the petitioner's accomplishments and explaining how they 
can be considered as original contributions of major significance in the field. Moreover,. 
_ stated that he seen the petitioner's training and fitness techniques without describing the 
petitioner's techniques and indicating how they are of major significance. As it relates to • 
~ reference to the petitioner's award and published articles, the regulations contain 
separate criteria regarding nationally or internationally recognized award and the authorship of 
scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) & (vi). The AAO will not presume that evidence 
relating to or even meeting the awards and scholarly articles criteria is presumptive evidence that 
the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory 
requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Therefore, while the petitioner's 
-Page 9 
award will not be considered under this criterion, it has already been discussed under the awards 
criterion. Although the petitioner's authorship of articles will not be considered under this criterion, 
they will be addressed under the next criterion. The articles are relevant to this criterion with regard 
to the impact they have had on the field that will be discussed later under this criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
I competed against several European athletes at the Olympic and World 
Championships numerous times at international meets who were trained by [the 
petitioner] when they were members of their National Team. . .. I observed on a 
personal level the improvement in the performance of these competitors, which 
improvement can be attributable in large part to the abilities and coaching regimen 
brought by [ the petitioner]. 
stated: 
While generally praises the improvement of the athletes who were coached by the 
petItIoner, she failed to establish that the petitioner has made original contributions of major 
significance beyond the limited number of athletes who were coached the 
the petitioner submitted a letter from 
Committee, who stated that the peltitil~m:r "has coached several Olympic and national events in 
events." Although failed to identify a specific athlete that was 
coached by the petitioner, neither one explained how the petitioner's coaching equated to an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. The AAO is not persuaded that simply coaching 
athletes who compete in national and international competitions automatically demonstrates that the 
petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Regarding the authorship of the petitioner's articles, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence 
reflecting the publication of his On the 
from 
The article was so impactful that I contacted him after reading it to obtain more 
information about his approach and ideas. In his article, [ the petitioner] explained 
the necessity of employing a multi-dimensional approach when training track and 
field athletes. [The petitioner] was also quite creative in adapting the fitness tool of 
"needs analysis" for track and field, specifically, as discussed in his article. [The 
petitioner] then employs the needs analysis in order to design a very precise strength 
training regimen, which results in better technique by the athletes, thereby 
improving their performance. The article included one of [the petitioner's] own, 
original training protocols, which focuses on single leg strength training. This is the 
real genius of [the petitioner's] approach, because the long jump, high jump, and 
pole vaulting events rely on the strength of a single leg for execution. 
Prior to [the petitioner's] introduction of his single leg strength training protocol, 
American coaches routinely relied on dual leg exercises, to the best of my 
Page 10 
knowledge. However, in light of [the petitioner's] article, coaches at some of the 
most competitive track and field programs in the country have adopted his single 
length training method, induding myself. 
~ill!:!~ submitted an email from 
who had three follow-up questions for the petitioner after 
counsel claimed in his brief that a letter from_ 
was submitted explaining the 
significance of the petitioner's article and training technique. However, a review of the record of 
proceeding fails to reflect the submission of the purported letter. 
Nonetheless, is insufficient to demonstrate that the 
petitioner's article and training technique has been of major significance in the field. While the 
AAO acknowledges the originality of the petitioner's work, the lack of supporting documentation 
does not establish the impact or influence of the on the field as a whole. Besides 
adopting the petitioner's technique at fails to provide 
specific information of any other universities who have widely adopted the petitioner's technique, 
so as to demonstrate that it has been of major significance. Instead,_ makes the general 
statement that "coaches . . . have adopted" the method without identifying a single coach or 
program. Moreover,_s email only reflects additional questions that he had from reading 
the petitioner's article rather than evidence that __ has even adopted the petitioner's 
training technique. 
While those familiar with the petitioner's work generally describe it as "extraordinary," there is 
insufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work is of major 
significance. This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make original 
contributions, the regulatory criterion also requires those contributions to be of major significance. 
The AAO is not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the regulatory language but 
do not explain how the petitioner's contributions have already influenced the field. Vague, solicited 
letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) affd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that the "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory 
language." 596 F.3d at 1122. Moreover, the letters considered above primarily contain bare 
assertions of the petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how those 
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd v. Sa va , 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The lack of supporting 
evidence gives the AAO no basis to gauge the significance of the petitioner's present contributions. 
Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
Page 11 
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 is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; US CIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008). 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 an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance. 
Regarding the prizes and awards won by athletes coached by the petitioner, it is noted that none of 
the recommendation letters specifically attribute the petitioner as being the coach of athletes who 
won competitions. Instead, the letters indicate that the individual ~ have improved 
under the coaching and tutelage of the petitioner. For example, __ stated that she 
"competed against several European athletes at the Olympic and World Championships numerous 
times at international meets who were trained when they were members of their 
National Team (heptathletes: " • 
_ made no mention of any awards won by these individuals rather than she on a 
personal level the improvement in the performance of these competitors." Similarly, as mentioned 
above, indicate that she won any competitions while the petitioner was her 
coach; instead indicated that reaching performance goals that were 
previously not within [her] reach." Likewise, that he "observed the outstanding 
results and athletic performances the athletes 
to specifically identifY the athletes and indicate their ac(:onlpllisruments. 
letter he indicated that the coached Ol,ympialns 
Although competing in the Olympics is 
any of these athletes garnered any medals. 
Further, stated that the petitioner "has coached several Olympic and national athletes" 
without indicating who were the athletes and if they garnered any awards that can be considered as 
major significance in the field. 
The petitioner did submit a screenshot from 
1. 
2. 
3. 
at the 
retl(:ctJrlgthe 
Page 12 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
While these . some success at 
the AAO is not persuaded that they constitute the petitioner's original contributions of major 
significance in the field. There is no evidence demonstrating that the personal accomplishments of 
the athletes have in any way impacted or influenced the field in a significant manner. Instead, they 
reflect noteworthy accomplishments to UGA and BSU. Moreover, any collegiate coach, or any 
athletic coach for that matter, can expect various levels of success of his athletes. It cannot be said 
that every coach whose athletes have some form of success at the regional and conference levels 
demonstrates contributions of major significance in the field as a whole. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field [emphasis added]." Without additional, specific evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential, widely applied throughout his field, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that he 
meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media." A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient 
Page 13 
documentary evidence establishing that he minimally meets the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the di;play of the alien '.I' work in the .field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
A review of the record of proceeding fails to reflect that the petitioner claimed eligibility for this 
criterion at the time of the original filing of the petition or in response to the director's request for 
additional evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). However, on appeal, 
counsel is now claiming the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion based on the athletic 
competitions of his athletes as comparable evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). A'i such, the director could not have erred in his decision as the petitioner is only 
claiming eligibility for this criterion for the first time on appeal. 
Regardless, as previously discussed, counsel failed to demonstrate that the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3) do not readily apply to the petitioner's occupation as a track and field assistant 
coach. Therefore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for 
the submission of comparable evidence. It is again noted that counsel claimed and submitted 
documentary evidence regarding several of the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3) thereby reflecting that the petitioner's occupation does readily apply. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) is not a provision to simply allow an alien to circumvent the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) when an alien is unable to meet or submit documentary 
evidence of the criteria. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[e]vidence 
of the display ofthe alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases [emphasis added]." 
The petitioner's field, however, is in athletics rather than the arts. The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion clearly indicates that it applies to artists. The ten criteria in the regulations are 
designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. 
Even if the AAO was to accept counsel's comparable evidence claim, which the AAO clearly does 
not, the documentary evidence contained in record, which was already discussed under the original 
contributions criterion, reflected the performances of the petitioner's pupils in competitions and not 
the display of the petitioner's work in competitions. Athletes are not presented as the work of their 
coaches such that the coaches garner recognition from the event. In other words, the events are not 
promoted as exhibitions of a coach's work. Moreover, virtually every athlete "displays" his or her 
work in the sense of competing in front of an audience. 
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 14 
The director detennined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, 
counsel claims the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion based on his role with the Olympia 
Athletics Club (OAC) and UGA's cross country and track and field team. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has perfonned in a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
[emphasis added]." 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. 
Regarding OAC, counsel refers to another letter from ~ho stated: 
I hold the position of [CSO] Executive Officer. I am well qualified in the field of 
athletics to provide my opinion on behalf of both and the 
which he was and 
[The petitioner] served with 
acknowledged leading, finest 
which team is the 
team in_ 
This team has included many of 
over the years, many of whom 
other leading track and field 
competitions wnrke,'; for this club as its primary 
Coach from 2001 until 2004 and was clearly serving in a critical capacity. Under his 
leadership, [OAC] developed numerous premier athletes in track and field who 
further competed in the world's leading international competitions. 
The petitioner failed to submit any other documentary evidence regarding OAC. While. 
_ indicated that he was qualified to provide his opinion, the petitioner failed to submit any 
documentation from OAC. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i) provides that the non­
existence or unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. According to 
the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or 
cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary 
evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. In the case here, 
the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence that evidence and 
secondary evidence do not exist or cannot be obtained. Regardless, letter that has 
been provided is not an affidavit as it was not sworn to or affinned by the declarant before an officer 
authorized to administer oaths or affirmations who has, having confirmed the declarant's identity, 
administered the requisite oath or affirmation. See Black's Law Dictionary 58 (9th Ed., West 2009). 
Nor, in lieu of having been signed before an officer authorized to administer oaths or affinnations, 
do they contain the requisite statement, permitted by Federal law, that the signers, in signing the 
statements, certify the truth of the statements, under penalty of perjury. 28 U.S.c. § 1746. As such, 
the petitioner failed to comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2). 
Page 15 
Nevertheless, provided insufficient information to demonstrate the petItIOner 
performed in a leading or critical role and that OAC has a distinguished reputation. The submission 
of a single letter that simply indicates the job title and generally claims that the petitioner performed 
in a critical role is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion. In other it cannot be 
determined from the petitioner's job title alone that his role is leading or critical. 
provided vague, general information without establishing that the petitioner's role was leading or 
critical. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr 
Associates, fnc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5. Similarly, Mr. Solomou's general and broad 
statement regarding the "develop[ment] [of] numerous premier athletes" is insufficient to reflect the 
distinguished reputation of OAe. 
the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence 
lCaUllllg or critical role. However, the petitioner failed to 
Moreover, while the screenshots highlight some 
accomplishments of individual athletes for both men and women, there is no indication from the 
rankings that the indoor or outdoor teams have achieved significant success at the NCAA level, let 
alone moderate success in the SEC. The AAO is not persuaded that the documentary evidence 
submitted by the petitioner demonstrates the distinguished reputation of UGA's track and field 
team. 
Again, 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." The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he meets every 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. 
Accordingl y, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial Sllccesses in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Similar to the artistic display criterion, counsel is claiming the petitioner's eligibility for this 
criterion for the first time on appeal. Counsel again claims that the petitioner is eligible to submit 
comparable evidence based on the "success of the athletes coached by [the petitioner]." For the 
reasons previously discussed, counsel failed to establish that the petitioner is eligible for the 
provisions of the submission of comparable evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires "[e]vidence 
of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, 
compact disk, or video sales [emphasis added]." In other words, this regulatory criterion requires 
evidence of commercial successes in the perfonning arts in the fonn of "box office receipts" or 
"sales." In the case here, the petitioner is not a performing artist such as a singer or actor; rather the 
petitioner is an athletic coach. Moreover, the record of proceeding fails to reflect that the petitioner 
submitted any documentary evidence regarding "box office receipts" or "sales." 
Accordingl y, 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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clear! y 
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 
detennination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (I) 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 detennination. 3 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 . 
. ; The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a linaI merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 CF.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(ii). See also section 103(a)(I) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 CF.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 CF.R. 
§ 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USeIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
Page 17 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.