dismissed O-1A Case: Athletics (Swimming)

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 0 5 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529- 2090 
,(.~~. ~o U.S. Citizenship 
; and Immigration 
c,'~... Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the 
Immigr ation and Nationality Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 
1 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision . The Form I-290B web page (www .uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filin g 
location , and other requirements . Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO . 
Thank you, 
XP~ 
Ron Rosenberg v--
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-P RECEDENTDECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Acting Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this petitiOn seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner is a swim school 
and currently employs the beneficiary as a swim site supervisor pursuant to an approved 0-1 petition. 
It seeks to extend the beneficiary's employment for a period of three years. The petitioner's 
November 21, 2013 letter indicates that the beneficiary has been working for the petitioner as a swim 
instructor and site supervisor since March 2011. 
After issuing a request for evidence (RFE) and then considering the evidence of record, the acting 
director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary has 
achieved the required national or international acclaim in her field. Specifically, the acting director 
determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets 
at least three of the eight regulatory criteria. Further, the acting director determined that the 
proffered position of swim site supervisor does not constitute continuing work in the alien's area 
of extraordinary ability, as the beneficiary's documented achievements are as a competitive 
swimmer. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal and submits a brief in support of the appeal. For the 
reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not submitted probative evidence satisfYing the plain 
language requirements of at least three criteria. 
I. TheLaw 
Section 101 ( a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to 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, whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the 
area of extraordinary ability. The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are 
intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the beneficiary ' s 
achievements in the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a significant 
nationally or internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the eight 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). If the petitioner demonstrates 
that the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 3 
occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(iii)( C). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818,41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In addition, we 
have held that, "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
acting director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, 
both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the 
fact to be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
II. Discussion 
A. Beneficiary's Area of Extraordinary Ability 
This petition, filed on December 9, 2013, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a swim instructor. The statute and regulations require that the beneficiary 
seek to continue work in her area of extraordinary ability in the United States. See section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(i). The record 
indicates that the beneficiary is a 32-year-old swimmer who participated in competitive swim 
competitions in the United States and Brazil between 1999 and 2004. The petitioner seeks to 
continue to employ the beneficiary for "the training of instructors, supervising the daily operation 
of the classes" and other "administrative" duties. The record indicates that the beneficiary has 
been certified as a coach at Level 2 by the American Swimming Coaches Association (ASCA). 
The petitioner has not indicated that the beneficiary will continue her career as a competitive 
swimmer in the United States under the terms and conditions of employment with the petitioning 
studio; rather, the petitioner describes the beneficiary in a November 21, 2013 Jetter as "a former 
competitive swimmer." 
The acting director was not persuaded that the beneficiary's proposed position as a swim site 
supervisor was in the beneficiary's claimed area of extraordinary ability. On appeal the petitioner 
claims that the director defined the beneficiary's claimed area of extraordinary ability too narrowly 
as "swimmer." The petitioner notes that the statute and regulations require that the beneficiary 
seek to continue work in the same area of extraordinary ability, not the same job position. The 
petitioner asserts that the acting director's interpretation is discriminatory because athletes can 
only compete for so long, they retain their recognition after they stop competing, and, in this case, 
the petitioner wants to continue the beneficiary's employment because of the experience she brings 
as a swimming champion. 
While a competitive swimmer and a swim instructor share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on 
different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive swimming and swim instruction are not the same 
area of expertise. See Lee v. INS. , 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (holding that it is 
reasonable to conclude that extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not imply extraordinary 
ability in all positions or professions in the baseball industry, such as manager, umpire, or coach). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Nevertheless, we recognize that there exists a nexus between playing or practicing and coaching a 
given sport. To assume that every competitive swimmer's area of expertise includes teaching or 
instruction, however, would be too speculative. In a case where the petitioner has clearly 
demonstrated the beneficiary's extraordinary ability as a swimmer-athlete and establishes that the 
beneficiary has sustained that acclaim in the field of instruction, 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 instruction is within the beneficiary's area of expertise. Specifically, in such 
a case we will consider the level at which the beneficiary acts as an instructor. An instructor who 
has an established successful history of instructing swimmers who compete regularly or perform at 
a high level has a credible claim; an instructor of novices does not. 
B. Extraordinary Ability 
1. Consideration ofthe Evidentiary Criteria 
As the requisite initial evidence, the petitioner has submitted evidence relating to the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), (2), (3), (5), and (7).The petitioner raises no objection to the 
acting director's determination that the remaining criteria have not been met. We will discuss the 
five criteria the petitioner has addressed below. After careful review of the record and for the 
reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not established eligibility under any of the evidentiary 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
The petitioner submitted a translation, but not the original foreign language version, of the 
beneficiary's resume as documentation of the beneficiary's receipt of the claimed prizes or awards, 
in which the beneficiary listed her awards in a section titled "Most Important Swimming Titles." 
The original foreign language document must accompany any certified English translation 
submitted to USCIS. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b). Moreover, 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. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft ~lCal{fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comrn'r 1972)). Accordingly, the translation 
is not probative. The petitioner also provided numerous articles, pertaining to prizes the 
beneficiary received in swimming competitions. 
The evidence submitted with respect to the beneficiary's awards does not demonstrate that they are 
nationally or internationally recognized. Of the prizes the beneficiary has received, we note that the 
Jose Finkel Trophy competition appears to be a regional event, rather than a national or international 
competition. In addition, the petitioner has not established that the Hall of Fame award from the 
, is a nationally or internationally recognized award. 
Although several articles indicate that the beneficiary successfully participated in the " 
, the petitioner has not submitted 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§JON 
Page 5 
official competition results or standings for this event or documentation regarding the nature, scope 
and significance of the competition. 
The petitioner submitted a letter dated January 14, 2011, from an 
executive' of. Ms. describes the association as 
"a recognized entity in the sport of swimming in Brazil." In her letter, Ms. 
states that the beneficiary "had represented our organization and several others [sic) recognized 
entities in Brazil." She states that the beneficiary "is a recognized athlete in Brazil and had received 
many [n]ational and international awards." This letter does not indicate what national or international 
awards the beneficiary has received. 
With respect to the remaining awards, without documentary evidence regarding the actual 
competitions themselves, such as the level of those who participated, the selection criteria and the 
distribution or circulation of the media that reported the results, the petitioner has not established, 
based on the name of the competitions alone, that the contests or tournaments are national or 
international, and therefore that the results are recognized beyond the awarding entities as 
qualifying awards. A competition may be open to individuals from throughout a particular country 
or countries, but this factor alone is not adequate to establish that an award or prize is "nationally 
or internationally recognized." The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of 
recognition and achievement associated with the beneficiary's awards. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings . Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary received 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in the sport of swimming. 
Finally, the record contains no evidence that the beneficiary has received a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence as a swim teacher or coach. The evidence supports 
the acting director's determination that the beneficiary's claimed national and international awards 
do not demonstrate the requisite sustained national or international acclaim as a swim coach. 
Overall, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language of the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission 
to membership . Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, 
minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, passing certification exams to work in 
1 
The text of Ms. letter states she is president of the association and the signature 
line states she is vice president. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
the field, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of 
dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. 
Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has been certified as a 
coach at Level 2 by the American Swimming Coaches Association (ASCA). This certificate 
indicates on its face that the beneficiary "has met all areas within the certification structure of 
achievement, education and experience" of the organization. In response to the RFE, the 
petitioner, in a March 3, 2014 letter, asserts that the petitioner earned a "Gold Card" from the 
ASCA and that this credential is "the highest level of Certification given to [the petitioner's] 
teachers by [the ASCA]." The Gold Card is not in the record. The acting director determined that 
the petitioner did not submit evidence that the beneficiary meets this criterion. The acting director 
concluded that the petitioner has not established that membership in the organization "requires 
outstanding achievements of their members." 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the beneficiary "had to past [sic] some tests and be evaluated 
by the association to receive her level of membership. Only individuals with high level in the filed 
[sic] could receive the membership level of the beneficiary." Upon review, although not discussed 
by the acting director, the petitioner has not submitted any evidence of the beneficiary's 
membership in the ASCA, such as the beneficiary's ASCA membership card. Even if the 
petitioner established that the beneficiary's documented certification as a coach at Level 2 by the 
ASCA constituted membership in the organization, the petitioner has not submitted evidence from 
the ASCA establishing the requirements for membership in the organization. The petitioner did 
not provide documentary evidence to support the petitioner 's explanation of the membership 
process. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. at 190). Even accepting the petitioner's assertions pertaining to the certificate 
requirements, passing competency exams for certification as a coach is not an outstanding 
achievement for a coach. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not satisfied the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
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 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(3), it 
must be "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. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner provided numerous articles pertammg to prizes the 
beneficiary received in swimming competitions. Although the petitioner submitted the original 
(b)(6)
NON-PRE CEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
source material for the foreign language articles, the majority of the articles were accompanied by 
certified translations of only portions ofthe original sources. The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b) 
requires that the translator certify the completeness of the translation . As the petitioner has not 
submitted full English language translations, it has not complied with this regulation . For this 
reason, this evidence is of limited probative value. 
The petitioner submitted the following published articles pertaining to the beneficiary, relating to her 
work in the field: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Regarding the items in and the petitioner did not include the 
author of the material as required under this criterion. 
In evaluating the petitioner's evidence, the acting director noted that the petitioner has submitted 
various articles regarding the beneficiary's work as a competitive swimmer. The majority of the 
articles merely provide the beneficiary 's results in various events. One article mentions that the 
beneficiary is ranked in the top 100 in the world in the 100-meter butterfly . While the petitioner 
has submitted some documentation reflecting published material about the beneficiary relating to her 
work as a competitive swimmer, the petitioner did not establish that the material was published in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. The burden is on the petitioner to 
establish every element of this criterion. 
Counsel also states that the beneficiary was "interviewed by [a] large TV channel in Brazil, in a 
sport program," however the petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of 
this claim. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not 
satisfy the petitioner 's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena , 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980) 
Finally, as noted by the director, the petitioner has not provided any published materials about the 
beneficiary referencing the beneficiary's work as a swim coach, instructor or trainer. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not satisfied this third criterion as it pertains to the beneficiary's national or 
international recognition as a swim coach. 
Based on the forgoing, the evidence of record supports the acting director's determination that the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
To meet the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), the petitioner has submitted 
a number of testimonial letters, as well as the above-referenced articles pertaining to prizes 
received at swimming competitions between 1999 and 2004. 
The record contains the above mentioned letter from Ms. Vice President of 
_ stating that the beneficiary "was responsible for attracting a large 
audience to the events [in which] she participated" and that "[the beneficiary's] contribution was 
critical for the success of the sport clubs she had represented and for all swimming competitions 
where she had performed." Ms. does not identify an original contribution 
that the beneficiary has made to the sport. We will consider the beneficiary's impact on 
organizations or establishments below pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
The petitioner provided a letter from a professional swimming coach and 
employee of the petitioner. Mr. describes the beneficiary as "an outstanding swimmer 
who has performed exceptional work in her field," "a world class athlete who possesses unique 
skills and knowledge and occupies a vital role in her field" and one whose "achievements as an 
athlete have place her firmly in the forefront of her field." Referring to the above competition 
results from 1999 to 2004, he states that the beneficiary has "attained national and international 
recognition for her performance as an athlete." 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted an additional letter from its president, 
, stating that one of the swimmers who trained with the company, "went on to swim a 
world record in the 50 meter backstroke in " As Ms. acknowledges that the 
beneficiary began working for the petitioner in 2011, the record does not establish that the 
beneficiary played a role in the instruction of this swimmer. Ms. also discusses the 
beneficiary's administrative and institutional knowledge but does not address the beneficiary's 
contributions to the sport of swimming. 
The petitioner submitted letters from the head coach of the 
, a swimming champion and friend of the beneficiary and whose son the 
beneficiary has coached. These letters address the ability of the beneficiary 's students to progress 
to more competitive programs but do not address the beneficiary 's contributions to the sport itself. 
Upon review, the evidence of record supports the acting director 's determination that the submitted 
evidence does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). All of the submitted 
letters, which are from the beneficiary's colleagues and personal acquaintances, praise the 
beneficiary's accomplishments and skills as a competitive swimmer and abilities as a swim coach, 
but none of these letters indicate that the beneficiary has made original contributions of major 
significance to her field. 
In general, attestations regarding the beneficiary 's talent, skills and success will not satisfy 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5) as evidence of the beneficiary's original contributions. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Competitive success is already taken into account by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), pertaining 
to prizes and awards, and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) provides for the submission of media 
coverage of an athlete or coach. Finally, regarding the beneficiary's coaching experience the 
petitioner did not submit any primary evidence of awards won by the beneficiary's student athletes 
while under her tutelage. 
Overall, while all of the submitted letters are highly complimentary and suggest that the 
beneficiary is a capable and well-liked swim coach, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance to the sport. Based on the 
foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
With respect to the beneficiary's career as a competitive swimmer, the acting director determined that 
the submitted evidence does not establish that the beneficiary has held a critical or essential position 
for an organization that has a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the beneficiary was selected to fill, her impact on the 
organization or establishment, and the reputation of the entity that selected her. On appeal, the 
petitioner contends that the beneficiary satisfies this evidentiary criterion based upon her competitive 
swimming "under [a] sport contract, for famous sport clubs in Brazil such as 
and and having been "sponsored by the State of Rio de Janeiro 
Government." The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary was "critical to the success of events 
sponsored by those recognized entities." The petitioner also contends that the beneficiary "has 
performed a critical role for the Brazilian National Team" and that she "represented Brazil in several 
international competitions." 
The petitioner submitted the above-referenced letter from Ms. . stating that 
the beneficiary "had represented our organization and several others [sic] recognized entities in Brazil 
such as and " and that the beneficiary "was responsible for attracting a 
large audience to the events she participated [sic]" and that "[the beneficiary's] contribution was 
critical for the success of the sport clubs she had represented and for all swimming competitions 
where she had performed." However, Ms. does not explain the manner in 
which she acquired knowledge about the beneficiary's claimed role in representing other swim 
entities in Brazil. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(B). As her assertions are not supported by corroborating 
factual information, either in her letter or in the above-referenced articles, her claims are not probative 
evidence. 
Furthermore, the petitioner did not submit evidence to establish the distinguished reputation of the 
organizations or establishments for which the beneficiary swam competitively. 
With respect to the beneficiary's coaching experience, the submitted evidence does not establish that 
the beneficiary has held a critical or essential coaching position for an organization that has a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 10 
distinguished reputation. To the extent that submitted evidence documents the beneficiary's swim 
career in Brazil and the United States, it does so only with respect to her career as a swimmer, rather 
than as a coach. As noted above, the beneficiary's achievements as a competitive athlete, while not 
without evidentiary weight, do not establish her eligibility for this classification as a swim instructor. 
The beneficiary's only documented coaching experience is her work as a swim instructor and site 
supervisor for the petitioning company. The petitioner has submitted letters from the petitioner's 
representatives, a client of the petitioner and the commending the beneficiary's work as a 
swim coach, and her role in helping to train the petitioner's swimmers. The letter from Mr. 
describes the beneficiary as "one of the best swim instructors I have ever met" and that swimmers 
coached by the beneficiary "have become the top age group swimmers in program." He 
describes the beneficiary's ability to teach as "unmatched." The letter 
from Ms. describes 
the beneficiary's achievements as including having instructed an "endless number of swimmers 
that have become great competitive placing in the top of Florida swimming rankings," although, as 
previously noted, Ms. does not identify any such swimmers coached by the beneficiary . 
The letter from Ms. describes the beneficiary as "the only person qualified" to run the 
petitioner's swim program in Ms. absence. Ms. _ asserts that the beneficiary 
possesses skills that "no other of my current employees is capable of." She cites as examples that 
only the beneficiary knows how to move the company's students from its swim club to the 
appropriate part of the swim team and "[ s ]he is familiar with the unique computer program for 
scheduling students. She also runs the office in my absence." On the basis of the above, the 
petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence establishing that the beneficiary was employed in a 
critical or essential capacity as a swim instructor and site supervisor at the petitioning swim school. 
The director's finding and comments to the contrary will be withdrawn. 
While it is not disputed that the beneficiary was employed in a critical or essential capacity for the 
petitioning swim school, the petitioner failed to establish that the petitioner is or was a company with 
a distinguished reputation, as required at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). The petitioner submitted 
no evidence regarding the reputation of the petitioner as a company. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the plain 
language ofthe evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
2. Summary 
In this case, the evidence of record supports the acting director's determination that the petitioner 
has not demonstrated the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that 
the beneficiary meets at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The evidence shows that the beneficiary is a skilled and 
experienced competitive swimmer. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a swim site 
supervisor and has been employing the beneficiary as a swim instructor and site supervisor, which 
includes training instructors and supervising the daily operation of classes. The record does not 
suggest that she will be competing. Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, for the 
reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has extraordinary 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page II 
ability as a swim instructor or site supervisor, demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim, as required by section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Act. Because the petitioner has also not 
demonstrated the beneficiary's eligibility as an extraordinary swimmer, we need not reach the 
question of whether the petitioner has established that coaching is within her area of expertise as a 
swimmer. Regardless, the petitioner has not documented the level of the swimmers who are 
currently under the primary tutelage of the beneficiary. Accordingly , the petitioner has not 
established that the totality of the evidence of the beneficiary's accomplishments as an athlete, 
combined with the level of coaching she has performed, is indicative of her eligibility as an 
acclaimed athlete whose area of expertise includes coaching. 
Consequently, the beneficiary is not eligible for nonimmigrant classification under section 
101(a)(15)(0) of the Act. For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
III. Prior Approval 
The record indicates that USCIS has previously approved a petition for 0-1 status filed on behalf of 
the beneficiary. The prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the 
original visa based on a reassessment of the petitioner's or beneficiary's qualifications. Texas A&M 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). In matters relating to an 
extension of nonimmigrant visa petition validity involving the same petitioner, beneficiary, and 
underlying facts, users will generally give deference to a prior determination of eligibility. 
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 o.f Church 
Scientology Int '!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comrn'r 1988). Each nonimmigrant petition filing is a 
separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(d). 
In making a detennination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in 
that individual record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). 
In the present matter, the acting director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the 
petitioner did not meet all eligibility requirements for the requested classification. If the previous 
nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same evidence that is contained in the current 
record, the approval would constitute material and gross error on the part of the acting director. 
Based on the lack of required evidence of eligibility in the current record, we find that the acting 
director was justified in departing from the previous petition approval by denying the instant 
petition. 
We are 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 (Comm'r 1988). USCIS need not treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 
1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). Despite any number of previously 
approved petitions, USCIS does not have any authority to confer an immigration benefit when the 
petitioner does not meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition. See section 291 of the Act. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~JON 
Page 12 
IV. Conclusion 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or satisfied at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner 
has also not established that swim instruction falls within the petitioner's area of expertise as a 
competitive swimmer. Consequently, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is eligible 
for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. For this reason, the petition may 
not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.