dismissed O-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwmmed 
invasion of personal privac) 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serviccs 
Administrative Appeals Gffice (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.. MS 2090 
Washineton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
DATE: APR 0 5 2011 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: A87 980 420 
EAC 10 057 51177 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(I 5)(0). 
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. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
y Perry Rheu 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal.' The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a gymnastics instruction center, filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
1 IOl(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary in the position of Gymnastics TrainerlCoach for a period of two years. The beneficiary was 
previously granted 0-1 status for employment with an unrelated entity; therefore, the petitioner requested that 
he be granted an extension of status. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has 
received "sustained national or international acclaim" or to demonstrate that he is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his field as a gymnastics coach. The director further found that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary has maintained any legal nonimmigrant status since his last admission 
to the United States in 2003. 
At the outset, it must be noted that Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by 
requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international 
acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 101(a)(I 5)(0)(i) of the 
Act. The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(A) 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 categories of specific objective 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(l) through (8). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence for the 
alien under at least three of the eight regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility 
requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the directly erroneously determined that there is no nexus between the 
beneficiary's extraordinary ability as a gymnastics athlete and his credentials and skills as a gymnastics/sport 
acrobatics trainer and coach. Counsel contends that the evidence submitted, including new evidence submitted on 
appeal, is sufficient to meet four of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(B), of which only three are required 
to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for the requested classification. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
I. TheLaw 
' The petitioner timely filed the appeal on March 23, 2010. The director treated the appeal as a motion to re- 
open or reconsider and dismissed it as untimely filed, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), on April 21, 2010. 
The petitioner filed a motion to re-open on July 30, 2010. On October 5, 2010 the director advised the 
petitioner that its appeal was in fact timely filed, apologized for the error, refunded the petitioner's filing fee 
for the motion to re-open, and forwarded the appeal to the AAO. The director's decision dated April 21, 2010 
is withdrawn. 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 11 01 (a)(15)(0)(i), provides for the classification of a qualified 
alien who: 
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, and seeks to enter the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability . . . . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive for aliens in 
the fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences. See 59 FR 41818,41819 (August 15, 1994); 137 
Cong. Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and discussing the lower standard for the 
arts). 
In a policy memorandum, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) emphasized: 
It must be remembered that the standards for 0-1 aliens in the fields of business, education, 
athletics, and the sciences are extremely high. The 0-1 classification should he reserved only for 
those aliens who have reached the very top of their occupation or profession. The 0-1 
classification is substantially higher than the old H-IB prominent standard. Officers involved in 
the adjudication of these petitions should not "water down" the classification by approving 0-1 
petitions for prominent aliens. 
Memorandum, Lawrence Weinig, Acting Asst. Comm'r., INS, "Policy Guidelines for the Adjudication of 0 
and P Petitions" (June 25, 1992). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiaiy criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in lhe fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
Page 4 
(I) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) 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 or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields: 
(3) Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, 
and any necessary translation; 
(4) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
journals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. r) 214,2(0)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 

'm 
Page 5 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certifying to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability . . . shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise ofthe affiant and the 
manner in which the aftiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg at 41 820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach set forth 
in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kmarian v. USCIS, 2010 W 
725317 (9" Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigant classification, the 
regulations reviewed by the Kamian court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three 
out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Cf: 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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)). The court also explained the 
"final merits determination" as the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2), 
and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens 
whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for 
an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under at 
least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. The AAO finds the Kuzarian court's 
two part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set forth for 0-1 nonimmigant petitions 
for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, in reviewing Service 
Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kuzarian. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United 
States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9U' Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
'- 
Page 6 
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to several of the evidentiary criteria, but has 
not established that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of his field or that he has achieved sustained national 
or international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) and (iii). 
II. Discussion 
A. Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Extraordinary Abiliw in the UniiedStates 
This petition, filed on December 23, 2009, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a gymnastics trainerlcoach. The statute and regulations require that the beneficiary seek to continue 
work in his area of extraordinary ability in the United States. See section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(i). The beneficiary was previously granted 0-1 
classification for a coaching position in sports acrobatics. The record is clear that the beneficiary intends to 
continue to work in the area of gymnastics coaching in the United States and is no longer a competitive 
athlete or performer. 
Aside from his work in the United States as a gymnastics coach, the record includes evidence showing that 
the beneficiary competed successfully in national and international gymnastics competitions in the 1980s until 
1990, and that he was a member of the Georgian National Sports Acrobatics team from 1986 until 1990. 
While a competitive gymnast and a coach may share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different 
sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching 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. 111. 2002), the 
court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any 
profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not 
imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball 
industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. While the record demonstrates that the beneficiary 
intends to continue working as a gymnastics coach, there is no evidence indicating that he intends to compete as 
a gymnast in the United States. We acknowledge the possibility of an alien's extraordinary claim in more than 
one field, such as a gymnastics coach and a competitive gymnast, but the 0-1 petition must be accompanied by 
evidence that the work which the alien is coming to the United States to continue is in the area of extraordinary 
ability. In this case, there is no evidence establishing that the beneficiary intends to continue working in the 
United States as a competitive gymnast. Although the beneficiary's competitive accomplishments as a gymnast 
are not completely irrelevant and will be given consideration, ultimately he must satisfy the statutory 
requirement at section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act as well as the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(A) or 
(B) through his achievements as a coach. 
m 
Page 7 
USCIS recognizes that there exists a nexus between playing and coaching a given sport. To assume that every 
extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, however, would be too speculative. To resolve this 
issue, a balanced approach is appropriate when reviewing the evidence in the aggregate in the final merits 
determination. Specifically, in a case where an alien has achieved recent national or international acclaim as 
an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching 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 coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. A coach who has an 
established successful history of coaching athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible 
claim; a coach of novices does not. 
B. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The beneficiary in this matter is a native and citizen of Georgia. He competed in the field of sports 
acrobatics at a national and international level between 1986 and 1990. He graduated from the Georgian 
Institute of Physical Culture in 1994, with the qualification of "Instructor of Physical Culture, Trainer." From 
1994 to 2000, he was a teacher of physical culture at a secondary school in Tbilisi, Georgia. The beneficiary 
was admitted to the United States in July 2003 in P-l status to work as a circus acrobatiperformer, and in 
2007, he was granted 0-1 status for employment as a sports acrobatics coach.2 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received 
a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its 
burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulations cite to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. Id. Given that the regulations specifically cite to the Nobel 
Prize as an example of a one-time achievement, examples of one-time awards which enjoy major, 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant for 
athletics) an Olympic Medal. The director determined that the petitioner submitted no evidence to meet this 
criterion, and the petitioner has raised no objection to this finding. 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the 
petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 
C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(~).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor 
The petitioner has submitted evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of the following awards as a competitive athlete 
in sports acrobatics, which is also referred to in the record as "sportive acrobatics" and "acrobatic gymnastics." 
The President of the United Gymnastics Federation of Georgia certifies that the beneficiary was a member of the 
2 The director noted in his decision that USCIS records reflect that the P-l petitions filed on the beneficiary's 
behalf had been revoked. 
3 The petitioner has not claimed to meet or submitted evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 8 
Georgian combined team from 1986 to 1990 and a Georgian champion in "fellows group trainings." The 
beneficiary's awards include the following: 
1986 - First place, Men's Groups, Sports Acrobatics Competition, International Tournament 
"Friendship 86" among the -, issued by the Yerevan 
City Sports Committee 
1987 -First place, Georgian Cup 
1988 - First place, Georgian Union Games 
1988 - First place, Georgian Cup 
1988 - First place, Men's Group Exercises among the Youth at the Soviet Army and Navy 
Championship in the Sports Acrobatics, issued by the Sports Committee of the USSR 
Ministry of Defense 
1988 - Third place, Final competition of the All Union Youth Summer Sports Games in 
Acrobatics 
1989 -First place, Georgian Championship 
1989 - First place, Men's Group Exercises, Youth IV All-Union Summer Sports Games in 
Acrobatics, issued by the USSR State Committee of Physical Culture and Sports 
1989 -First place, Championship of the USSR 
1989 Third place, World Junior Championships in Sports Acrobatics 
1990 -First place, Georgian Cup 
1990 -Second place, Championship of the USSR 
1990 First place, All-Around competitions at the Soviet Army and Navy Championship in 
the Men's Group Exercises 
1990 - First place, Cup of the USSR 
The petitioner provided copies of the beneficiary's award certificates and medals, as well as copies of two 
icles reporting the beneficiaty's results at the 1989 World Championship (as a member of 
the Soviet Union team), and at the 1988 Georgia Cup competition. 
The AAO finds sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary received nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards. However, these awards were the result of the beneficiary's achievements as a 
competitive athlete more than 19 years prior to the filing of the petition. Subsequent to 1990, there is no 
evidence indicating that the beneficiary (age 38 at the time of filing) has remained active as a competitor in 
national or international gymnastics events. 
As the petitioner clearly seeks to employ the beneficiary as a gymnastics trainerlcoach, the "area of extraordinary 
ability" for which classification is sought is coaching. There is no evidence indicating that the beneficiary seeks 
to work in the United States as a competitive gymnast. The preceding awards all resulted from the beneficiary's 
accomplishments as a competitive gymnast some two decades ago, thus they cannot be considered evidence of 
his sustained national or international recognition as a coach. As previously discussed, the statute and 
regulations require that the beneficiary seeks to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability in the 
United States. See section IOl(a)(lS)(O)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i); 8 C.F.R. 
Page 9 
24.2(0)(3)(). See also Lee v. INS, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. There is no evidence showing that the 
beneficiary has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in coaching. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's member~ship in associations in the field for which classifcation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or,field.s. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(2), the petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an 
essential condition for admission to membership. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not 
determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that the beneficiary represented the Soviet Union in the 1989 
Junior World Championships in sports acrobatics and was a member of the- 
until 1990. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that the beneficiary was designated as a "USSR 
in 1988. In this case, "the field for which classification is sought" is 
coaching. We note that the beneficiary achieved the preceding honors based on his ability as a competitive 
athlete, not as a coach. Accordingly, the beneficiary's athletic accomplishments as a member of the USSR's 
national gymnastics team and designation as a USSR Master of Sports, before he was active as a coach, cannot 
serve to meet this regulatory criterion. 
international experts in the beneficiary's field or an allied one 
As indicated above, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the "alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought." In this case, the field for which 
classification is sought is gymnastics coaching. There is no evidence indicating that the beneficiary seeks to 
work in the United States as a competitive gymnast. As previously discussed, the statute and regulations require 
that the beneficiary seeks to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability in the United States. See 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(i). See also Lee v. 
I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. As such, the beneficiary's participation as a competitor on the 1989 Soviet 
World Championship team and his Master of Sports title based on his accomplishments as a gymnast in the 
1980s do not meet the elements of this criterion for purposes of establishing his extraordinary ability as a coach. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
- 
Page 10 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the 
alien, relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which classification is sought, which shall 
include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary translation 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3), it must be 
primarily "about" the beneficiary 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. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. 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.4 
The petitioner submitted an article titled "Success at the World Championship," from the December 5,2009 issue 
of the The article mentions the success of the Soviet Union team at the Junior World 
Championship held in Latovitze, Poland, and specifically the achievements of Georgian members of the team. 
The beneficiary's name is mentioned among the four bronze medalists in the male group category. The petitioner 
submitted a second article titled "Sportive Acrobatics: Six First Place Finishes" from the - 
published November 5, 1988. The article mentions that Georgian athletes won six fust place 
awards at the Georgia Cup Competition, and indicates that the beneficiary was a member of the four-person 
group that won first place in the "male group exercises" event. 
The AAO notes that neither of these articles, which simply report team results at athletic events, could be 
considered to be "about the beneficiary."' We have already acknowledged the significance of the beneficiary's 
national and international awards earned as an athlete and these articles merely confirm the beneficiary's receipt 
of those awards. Furthermore, both of these articles reflect the beneficiary's accomplishments as a gymnast rather 
than his accomplishments as a gymnastics coach. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
published material "about the alien . . . relating to the field for which classification is sought." We cannot 
conclude that the preceding material relates primarily to the beneficiary's work as a coach. Further, there is 
no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that either of the above-referenced Georgian publications 
qualify as "major media." 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation on apanel, or individually as a judge ofthe work of others 
in the same or in an alliedfield of specialization to that for which classiJcation is sought 
4 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. 
5 
See, e.g, Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-WJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
- 
Page 1 1 
The certification issued on the beneficiary's behalf by the United Gymnastics Federation of Georgia indicates that 
the beneficiary has been "awarded the rank of First Class Judge in Sport Acrobatics." The petitioner indicated 
that this evidence is "meant to illustrate that [the beneficiary] has the qualifications to participate as a judge of 
others in the field and that he has been authorized by the Georgian National United Gymnastic Federation to 
perform this duty in the past." 
The director determined that the petitioner "failed to submit any information to indicate that the beneficiary 
actually participated in any event as a judge." The AAO concurs with the director's finding that neither the initial 
evidence nor the petitioner's response to the request for evidence included direct evidence of the beneficiary's 
credentials as a judge in the sport of gymnastics, or evidence of his participation as a judge in any gymnastics 
events. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that "the beneficiary was awarded the rank of First Class Umpire in Sport Acrobatics," 
and that he participated as a judge in gymnastics events between 2000 and 2003. Counsel asserts that "this status 
is only given to an individual who has reached and earned a specific degree of respect for his excellence and 
achievement in his field." 
The petitioner submits for the first time on appeal a "Certificate of Referee" in artistic gymnastics, issued in 
March 2001, which bears the stamp of the - The document indicates 
that the beneficiary was a referee at the Georgian Championship in September 2000, at the Open Championship 
of Tbilisi in April 2001, at the Georgian Championship in August 2001, and at the Championship of Georgia in 
May 2002. One additional event is listed in the document, the "Championship of Georgia," but the date of the 
event is incomplete. The document indicates that the beneficiary's "awarded category" as a referee is 
"Republican." 
The petitioner has not established that a "referee" is in fact equivalent to a ':judgen within the sport of artistic 
~ - 
gymnastics, nor has it established the significance of the beneficiaw's "Republican" category Absent additional 
competition. Furthermore, we note that, although the "Certificate of Referee" indicates on its face that it was 
issued on March 17, 2001, it appears to document the beneficiary's participation as a referee in at least one event 
that occurred nearly a year before its issuance. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet the plain 
language requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacig for organizations 
and establishments that huve a distinguished reputation 
Page 12 
The director determined that the petitioner did not claim to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
On appeal, counsel emphasized that the petitioner provided recommendations from persons in the entertainment 
field which were submitted "to illustrate both the beneficiary's prowess in his specific field as well as his 
importance to those specific organizations." Counsel emphasized that the petitioner submitted a total of five 
letters from agencies who "require and look for the best individuals in unique specialty acts" and "seek athletes 
with the highest skill and expertise." Counsel indicates that the individuals who provided testimonial evidence 
"have all indicated that the beneficiary was not only critical but also essential in the success of their various 
agencies." 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. The beneficiq is seeking a position as a gymnastics 
coach/inshuctor. Testimonial evidence regarding his credentials as a circus acrobat cannot establish his sustained 
national or international acclaim in coaching. 
In a letter dated May 28, 2005, of praises the beneficiary as "an 
extraordinarily talented and excellent performer," gives high praise to the beneficiary's aerial acrobatic routine, 
and commends the beneficiary on his infectious energy, and his "extraordinary, unusual and outstanding diversity 
of skills." He states that the beneficiary's abilities "made the show such wild success." He indicates that the 
beneficiary performed a Russian Bar Act "in such great shows asand = 
In a second letter dated June 18, 2005,states that the beneficiary is an 
outstanding performer and "one of the best aerial web and acrobats I have ever seen." He states that the 
beneficiary is "integral to the success of the shows where he is engaged." 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from ased 
- states that he travels the world searching for new acrobatic talents, and 
indicates that the beneficiary's "aerial bar display . . .is artistically unique, very unusual and sophisticated act." He 
opines that the beneficiary "is valuable and excellent access [sic] to any circus, theme parks or casino shows." 
The record includes a letter dated March 25,2005 from artistic director of - 
The letter is addressed to the beneficiary and indicates thatcircus was honored to have the 
beneficiary's group as guest stars at their December 15, 2004 show. writes: "You are very valuable, 
extremely talented and exceptional performer, blessed with an easy genuine personality that reach beyond the 
circus ring." 
The petitioner submitted a letter dated March 28,2005 which was addressed to the beneficiary from - 
artistic director of She thanks the beneficiary for "two months of outstanding 
performances in our winter dates in Alabama, Georgia and Florida tour."indicates that the - 
[sic] provided "exceptional entertainment" for audiences and provided "the needed excitement." 
Finally, the petitioner relies on a letter dated May 28, 2005 from - 
Agency. recommends the beneficiary as "an exceptional and extraordinary circus actor." He notes 
that beneficiary's "incredible performances as one of the four young acrobatsigymnasts and dancers at = 
has led us to consistently request performance of the same act for third year 
Page 13 
with the same company." pines that the beneficiary's act "in nothing short of extraordinary and 
unique" and "always well-executed with professional costuming, make-up and top-line acting." 
Upon review, this evidence fails to meet the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. jj 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(7) for several 
reasons. First, as emphasized above, the petitioner clearly seeks to employ the beneficiary as a gymnastics 
trainerlcoach, thus, "the area of extraordinary ability' for which classification is sought is coaching. There is no 
evidence indicating that the beneficiary seeks to work in the United States as a circus performer. As the 
preceding testimonial evidence relates to the beneficiary's accomplishments as a circus performer, it cannot be 
considered evidence of his national or international recognition as a gymnastics coach. As discussed above, the 
statute and regulations require that the beneficiary seeks to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability 
in the United States. See section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. 
24.2(0)(3)(). See also Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. The petitioner has neither claimed nor 
submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary has been employed as a gymnastics coach in a critical or 
essential capacity for an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
Furthermore, even if the beneficiary's experience as a circus performer were directly relevant to his proffered 
position as a gymnastics coach, the evidence submitted fails to meet the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. At best, the evidence indicates that the beneficiary is regarded as a very talented circus performer, 
rather than a critical or essential employee of a circus with a distinguished reputation. In fact, the petitioner 
submitted no corroborating evidence to establish the distinguished reputation of the organizations that 
provided letters. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at (Comm'r. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on his 
coaching experience. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the 
beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the eight 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessaly to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. $214,2(0)(3)(iii). 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that considers all 
of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (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," 8 C.F.R. jj 2 14.2(o)(3)(ii) and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See section IOl(a)(IS)(O)(i) of 
.- 
Page 14 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) and 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii); see also Kuzurian, 2010 WL 725317 at 
*3. 
In evaluating our final merits determination, we must look at the totality of the evidence to determine the 
beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act. As a competitive athlete in sports 
acrobatics, the beneficiary competed at a national and international level between 1986 and 1990, when he 
was 15 to 19 years old, and won a bronze medal in the junior world championships of his sport. The 
beneficiary's documented accomplishments as a gymnastics coach, however, fall far short of establishing that he 
"is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and that he "has 
sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the field of expertise." 
The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii), depends on the 
extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent 
with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability." 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(ii). 
In this case, the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in 
the preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
With regard to the beneficiary's awards as a competitive gymnast submitted for 8 C.F.R. 
5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(l), there is no evidence indicating that the beneficiary has received any nationally or 
internationally recognized awards in his sport since 1990 or that he intends to continue competing as a 
gymnast in the United States. As discussed previously, the statute and regulations require the beneficiary's 
national or international acclaim to be sustained and that he seeks to continue work in his area of extraordinary 
ability in the United States. See section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) and 
8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(0)(3)(i) and (iii). Accordingly, the beneficiary's awards and competitive results 
demonstrating his past record of success as a national and international gymnastics competitor from 1986 to 
1990 are not an indication that he has sustained national or international acclaim as a competitive gymnast 
during the nineteen years preceding the petition's filing date. The petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary has received any nationally or internationally recognized awards as a gymnastics coach. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(j), counsel points to the articles 
published in two Georgian newspapers, which "pointed out the beneficiary's individual achievements." 
However, there is no evidence showing that articles in these newspapers, or in any major publications, have 
been written about the beneficiary relating to his work as a gymnastics coach. The beneficiary's national 
awards as an athlete, which are mentioned in the submitted articles, are noted. However, the petitioner has 
failed to submit evidence in the form of published materials about the beneficiary that demonstrates that the 
beneficiary has sustained acclaim as a gymnastics coach. See section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 I 101 (a)(l 5)(O)(i) and 8 C.F.R. Q: 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(j). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(4), the petitioner failed to submit 
supporting evidence to establish that the beneficiary's referee credentials and record from the United 
.- 
Page 15 
Gymnastics Federation of Georgia establish that he has judged the work of others in the field of gymnastics. 
Again, we emphasize that we have no basis to conclude that a "referee" and a "judge" perform the same duties 
as gymnastics officials, or that a referee is responsible for judging and scoring athletes during competitive 
meets. Without additional documentary evidence establishing that the beneficiary has actually participated as 
a judge and that his activities involved judging top athletes at the national level or above (rather than age- 
group categories or junior competitors), we cannot conclude that his participation as a referee meets the plain 
language of this criterion, or that it was commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The evidence submitted to satisfy the beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(7) relates 
solely to his career as a circus acrobat. The petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary has been employed in a critical or essential capacity as a coach for an organization that has a 
distinguished reputation. 
Beyond the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii), the petitioner submitted several letters of 
support and an advisory opinion from USA Gymnastics. While reference letters can provide useful information 
about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters do not equate to 
extensive evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The 
nonexistence of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103,2(b)(2)(i). The 
classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii). Primary 
evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than opinion statements from 
individuals selected by the petitioner or the beneficiary. 
With respect to the letter from of USA Gymnastics, we acknowledge that this letter satisfies the 
petitioner's obligation to provide a written consultation from an appropriate entity, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
$5 214,2(0)(2)(ii)(D) and 214.2(0)(5). Consultations are advisory and are not binding on USCIS. 8 C.F.R. 
5 2 14,2(0)(5)(i)(D). 
states: 
USA Gymnastics is able to advise you that [the beneficiary] has been involved in gymnastics 
at the highest levels for Georgia for over twenty years. Until 1996, [the beneficiary] 
competed and then coached for Georgia who was a part of the dominate [sic] Soviet Republic 
and ranked as a perpetual world leader in the sport of gymnastics. 
She describes the beneficiary as "an internationally renowned gymnastics coach" of "extraordinary stature." 
As noted above, the beneficiary competed in the sport of gymnastics at the highest levels (or highest junior 
levels) of the sport between 1986 and 1990. tatement implies that the beneficiary then coached 
gymnastics at the highest level "for Georgia" until 1996. The record contains no supporting evidence 
indicating that the beneficiary ever coached the Georgian national team. The record shows that the beneficiary 
was admitted to the Institute of Physical Culture in 1988 and graduated in 1994 with the qualification 
- The only position listed in the beneficiary's Georgian "Work 
Page 16 
Re~.ord, I3ook" is hii po3ition as a tcachcr oi pl~)siial culture at ill 
 from 
August 20, 1994 until .4ugust 18. 2000. It'the benefi~ial?. \\as in tiit R g!~nnastiis coazh at the highest le\el 
of competition for the Georgian team, the AAO finds it reasonable to find that position recorded in the 
beneficiary's official work records. Thus, while we acknowledge that 
 supports the beneficiary's 
petition, the AAO cannot exempt the petitioner from submitting evidence that satisfies the regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(A) or (B). The evidence of record simply does not support a conclusion that the 
beneficiary is an "internationally renowned gymnastics coach." While the beneficiary appears to possess the 
qualifications to be a gymnastics trainerlcoach, the 0-1 classification is not intended for persons who are 
merely well-qualified in their field. 
The petitioner submitted recommendation letters from the beneficiary's peers, including- 
ndicates that she was a member of the Georgian and Soviet national teams in sports 
gymnastics during the time the beneficiary was active in the sport. She describes the beneficiary as "a very 
talented and hardworking sportsman with a strong will of character," and states that he "is a high-quality 
specialist in sports gymnastics and acrobatics." 
indicates that he was a member of the Georgian sport acrobatics team from 1984 to 1994. He 
lists the beneficiary's athletic awards, and states that the beneficiary "is hard working, disciplined and 
organized sportsman with stable character." a former gymnast for the Georgian team who is 
currently an International Judge, provided a similar letter. She notes that, in addition to the beneficiary's 
athletic achievements, he is "Master of Sport, Judge and extraordinary trainer." 
also a former member of the Georgian sport acrobatics team in the 1980s, summarizes the 
beneficiary's athletic achievements and notes that he is "Master of Sport, Judge and extraordinary trainer." 
states that the beneficiary "brought up several champions of Georgia." 
Finally, states that he knows the beneficiary to be "a tremendous athlete and a highly skilled 
coach." 
While three of the beneficiary's peers have positively endorsed the beneficiary's skill as a coach or trainer in 
gymnastics, such endorsements cannot be accepted in lieu of direct evidence of the beneficiary's sustained 
national or international acclaim as a gymnastics coach in accordance with the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(B). The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Mutter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Commr. 1988). USCIS 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; USClS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they 
support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) 
(noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the 
experts' statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition 
'- 
Page 17 
are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of achievements and recognition that one would 
expect of a gymnastics coach who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits recommendation letters from several parents of young gymnastics students 
at the petitioner's training center, where it appears the heneficiruy has already assumed the proffered position 
as a coach. The letters establish that the beneficiary is well-liked and highly regarded by these parents and 
their children; however, these endorsements do not establish the heneficiary's record of sustained national or 
international acclaim as a gymnastics coach. 
We cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive documentation" of the 
beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner seeks to rely primarily on vague 
testimonial letters rather than on any primary evidence of the heneficiary's achievements as a gymnastics 
coach. In fact, the only well-documented role held by the beneficiary as a trainer or coach is the beneficiary's 
Georgian work record, which reflects that he was an "instructor of physical culture" at a secondary school for 
approximately 6 years. We are not persuaded that evidence with the numerous deficiencies noted equates to 
"extensive documentation" demonstrative of an individual with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of Chmuathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376 citing Mutter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r. 1989). 
The petitioner seeks to qualify the beneficiary for a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields. The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to 
meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggegate. Even in the aggregate, 
the evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an extent that he 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to he within the small percentage 
at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international level. Accordingly, the appeal 
will he dismissed. 
The record does show that the beneficiary was previously granted 0-1 status for employment for a gymnastics 
coaching position with an unrelated petitioner. However, the mere fact that USCIS, by mistake or oversight, 
approved a visa petition on one occasion does not create an automatic entitlement to the approval of a 
subsequent petition for renewal of that visa. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir 2007); 
see also Matter of Church Scientology Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). For example, if USCIS 
determines that there was material error, changed circumstances, or new material information that adversely 
impacts eligibility, USCIS may question the prior approval and decline to give the decision any deference. 
- 
Page 18 
In the present matter, the director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the beneficiary was 
ineligible for the requested classification. In both the request for evidence and the notice of decision, the 
director clearly articulated the objective statutory and regulatory requirements and applied them to the case at 
hand. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of a prior approval that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter ofchurch 
Scientology International, 19 I&NDec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). Despite any number of previously approved 
petitions, USCIS does not have any authority to confer an immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to 
meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition. See section 291 of the Act. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed