sustained EB-1A Case: Equestrian Show Jumping

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
EXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 06 127 52482 mo82[)07 
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. tj 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
sustained and the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" 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 in athletics. The director determined the petitioner had not established the 
requisite sustained national or international acclaim. More specifically, the director found that the 
petitioner meets only one of the regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. While not all of counsel's assertions are persuasive and some of 
the director's concerns are valid, we find that the evidence satisfactorily meets an additional two 
criteria, especially in light of the remaining evidence that, while not persuasive by itself, is at least 
consistent with a finding of sustained acclaim. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
An alien, or any person on behalf of the alien, may file for classification under section 203(b)(l)(A) of 
the Act as an alien of extraordinary ability in science, the arts, education, business, or athletics. Neither 
an offer of employment nor a labor certification is required for this classification. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 
(November 29, 1991). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has achieved sustained national or international acclaim are set forth in regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be discussed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top 
level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an equestrian show 
jumper - trainer and rider. While the evidence suggests that the petitioner may have once enjoyed 
acclaim as a rider and that he continues to compete as a rider, the record also suggests that the petitioner 
is currently more successfU1 as a trainer. 
At the outset, we must address counsel's assertions relating to the required evidence in this matter. 
Counsel relies on a non-precedent decision by this office for the proposition that a petitioner may 
rely on letters from other professionals as evidence of awards. Only decisions designated as 
precedents are binding in future matters. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(c). A non-precedent decision does not 
necessarily discuss all evidence submitted. While the non-precedent decision submitted by counsel 
does not explicitly indicate that copies of awards were submitted, it also does not state that such 
evidence was not included or state that such evidence is not required to establish the receipt of 
awards. Regardless, 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 (Cornrn. 1988). It remains, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(2) requires the submission of primary evidence unless it is established 
to be unavailable or nonexistent. Only where secondary evidence is also established to be unavailable 
or nonexistent may the petitioner rely on affidavits alone. 
In addition, it is also worthwhile to discuss the concept of sustained acclaim. We find that sustained 
acclaim requires continued acclaim as of the date of filing. That said, we do not discount evidence that 
is not recent if other evidence sufficient to meet a regulatory criterion establishes continued acclaim as 
of the date of filing. 
A rider and a trainer certainly share knowledge of show jumping. While many trainers may continue 
to compete, the two activities rely on very different sets of basic skills. Viewing competitive 
athletics and coaching or training as separate areas of expertise has been upheld in Federal Court. 
Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002). 
Nevertheless, this office has recognized that there exists a nexus between competing and coaching or 
training. To assume that every extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, however, 
would be too speculative. To resolve this issue, the following balance is sometimes appropriate. In 
a case where an alien has clearly achieved national or international acclaim as a competitor and has 
Page 4 
sustained that acclaim as a trainer at a national level, we can consider the totality of the evidence as 
establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that we can 
conclude that training is within the petitioner's area of expertise. In this matter, the petitioner has 
worked as a trainer for many years and has ample opportunity to earn acclaim in that occupation. 
Thus, the petitioner must demonstrate that he meets three criteria as a trainer. That said, in this 
matter, the petitioner's demonstrated track record of success as a competitor bears mention as it is 
certainly consistent with his current acclaim in the field generally. 
, 
Rather than simply relying on the affidavits of members of his field as evidence of his riding awards, 
the petitioner submitted objective documentation of his national awards, including copies of awards 
and news reports. The book, "Riding Forward," profiles the New Zealand Horse Society and 
contains several references to the petitioner. The book also lists the winners of the New Zealand 
Olympic Cup, which the petitioner won in 1982 and 1980 and the Merrylegs Cup, which the 
petitioner won in 1989 and 1990. Newspa er articles confirm the petitioner's participation in the 
1988 Olympics in behalf of New Zealand. P, Chairman of Selectors, Show Jumping 
New zealaid, asserts that the petitioner "was ranked in the World Cup standings through 1995, 
spending six of those years in the top five riders." The petitioner also submitted an F.E.L/Samsung 
International Competition ribbon from 1993. Finally, the petitioner submits his results for the Volvo 
World Cup, including a second place finish in 1983 and 1986. In 1995, the final year he competed in 
this competition, the petitioner finished second in the preliminary competition. Thus, while these 
awards are not evidence of sustained acclaim in 2006, when the petition was filed, it is a notable 
record, consistent with his continued notoriety in the field generally after establishing himself as a 
trainer. 
Moreover, while the record would have been bolstered by letters from nationally successful riders 
trained by the petitioner other than his wife and daughter, it remains that both the petitioner's wife and 
records and affirm being trained, at least at some point, by the 
former Chair of the New Zealand Equestrian Federation Coaching 
coached Olympians 
uring the 1990's. Similarly, Larry Langer, President and CEO of Langer 
airman of the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF), the national 
governing body of equestrian sport in the United States, asserts that the petitioner "is already training a 
group of young riders here, three of whom will compete to represent our region at the National 
Championships." 
In addition, the press coverage submitted consists mostly of press releases, articles in regional 
publications or articles that mention the petitioner only in passing. The press coverage in national 
publications is much older than the local and regional coverage. Nevertheless, while insufficient on its 
own, we note that the petitioner has been consistently covered to some degree. 
Further, the record contains a letter fi-omffrming that the petitioner participated in the New 
Zealand Equestrian Federation Coaching Committee, wrote the 1,000 page training course, "which is 
still used today and is the course book used at the polytechnic colleges." This undertaking took four 
years. The petitioner then taught the course from 1995 through 200 1. The petitioner submitted a 1996 
Coaching Certificate for naming the petitioner as a course director. Once again, this letter 
would have carried more weight had the petitioner submitted copies of the title pages of textbooks or 
other course materials crediting the petitioner as the author. Moreover, the record suggests that the top 
New Zealand riders do not train in New Zealand. Nevertheless, we mention this letter as additional 
evidence consistent with the petitioner's continued notoriety after his last major riding award. 
Finally, we emphasize that the opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). 
However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion 
that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; 
See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the 
preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for 
submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should 
be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
Nevertheless, it bears mention that several members of the show ju 
credentials have written in support of the petition. Most notabl 
petitioner is "New Zealand's most preeminent show jum 
 der in the horse 
industry and an extraordinary international competitor." 
field, a gold medalist, the coach of the U.S. 1996 and 2 
 n teams, director of the U.S. 
Equestrian Team and American Horse Show Association and Vice President of the American Grand 
Prix Association. 
 is also featured as a "legend" on the cover of Practical Horseman. 
a board member of U.S.A. Equestrian and Olympic Course Designer, asserts that the 
petitioner is New Zealand's most highly regarded show jumping rider and trainer. She hrther asserts 
that he has managed New Zealand's leading jumping competitions and that he "trains international 
level horses and coaches top jumper riders, including young up and coming riders as well as top 
international level Grand Prix riders." 
an Olympic medalist in equestrian sports and Director of the New Zealand Olympic 
Academy, notes that not only has the petitioner achieved great riding achievements, he has done so on a 
number of horses, the majority of whom he produced himself. She further asserts that the petitioner's 
"contribution to the coaching system has been a major factor in the increasing success of New Zealand 
riders on the international scene today." She concludes that the petitioner's accomplishments both as a 
rider and trainer are well known internationally. 
All of the above evidence, while insufficient had the petitioner not demonstrated that he meets the 
regulatory requirements as a trainer, is highly consistent with a finding that the petitioner has enjoyed a 
career of acclaimed work in the field of show jumping. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) presents ten criteria for establishing sustained national or 
international acclaim, and requires that an alien must meet at least three of those criteria unless the alien 
has received a major, internationally recognized award. Review of the evidence of record establishes 
that the petitioner has in fact met three of the necessary criteria. As stated above, the director 
acknowledged that the petitioner's role as organizer of prominent horse festivals was a leading or 
critical role for an entity for a distinguished entity pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Thus, the petitioner need only demonstrate that he meets an additional two criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classrfication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted his credential as a Grade N Show Jumping International Expert issued by the 
New Zealand Equestrian Federation in December 2000. By itself, the handwritten notations on this 
document would be insufficient. The petitioner, however, submitted additional evidence to confirm the 
information on the document and its significance. Ainslee Souness, the Coach Development Manager 
for Eauestrian S~orts New Zealand. confirms ~reviouslv and again on ameal that the ~etitioner was 
issued a Grade I% credential. 
 df ~~uesthan sp&ts New ikaland, asseis that a Level 
Four Coaching Passport is only awarded to those nominated and approved by the national coaching 
committee who meet the following standards: 
Have represented their national federation at international level, Olympics or 
other internationally recognized competitions. 
Coached to international grand prix level. 
Been involved in administration at nationaVintemationa1 level. 
Administrated at an event nationally or internationally recognized. 
asserts that the petitioner is one of ''very few New Zealand equestrians, and certainly the 
only show jumper with his ability and reputation, to have qualified for the Level 4 international 
credential (an international system in which the U.S. does not participate)." The director failed to 
consider this evidence under this criterion. 
While a coaching credential may not be a membership in an association, it would seem that this 
criterion is not applicable to the petitioner's field. Thus, we can consider comparable evidence to meet 
this criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). We are persuaded that nomination 
Page 7 
for and receipt of this coaching credential is comparable to an exclusive membership. Thus, the 
petitioner has established that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
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 alliedfield of speczfication for which classzjkation is sought. 
The evidence submitted to meet this criterion is the strongest and most recent. Initially rn 
Chairman of the Board of Directors for the New Zealand Equestrian Federation, asserts that 
he asked the petitioner "to evaluate New Zealand equestrian riding in the U.S." He concludes that the 
petitioner's input will be invaluable in selecting the team for the 2008 Olympics. This letter does not 
clearly explain the petitioner's official role. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted the letter From. 
who asserts that the petitioner "was chosen by the New Zealand Olympic Selection Committee 
to be the only North American selector for riders to 
 aland in international 
competitions, most especially the 2008 Olympic Games." 
 Chairman of selectors, 
asserts that the petitioner 
 the High Performance Selection Panel "when he moved 
to the U.S." Significantly, 
 the petitioner participates in the selection discussions 
and "has a vote in the outcome." 
 notes that the committee also seeks the petitioner's advice 
in such matters as proposed calendars for training and events. 
The director concluded that the evidence of the petitioner's duties for the Selection Panel related to 
duties after the date of filing. While the specific examples of the types of duties the petitioner performs 
for the committee postdate the filing of the petition, the petitioner has served on this committee since 
entering the United States. We are satisfied that the petitioner has established that he met this criterion 
as of the date of filing. 
In review, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by counsel and 
some claims are not well supported by objective evidence, we are satisfied that the petitioner has 
established that he has been recognized as an alien of extraordinary ability who has achieved sustained 
national acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise. The petitioner 
has established that he seeks to continue working in the same field in the United States. The petitioner 
has established that his entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United 
States. Therefore, the petitioner has established eligibility for the benefits sought under section 203 of 
the Act. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is 
approved.