dismissed O-1A Case: Chess

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 058 5 1676 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 1 7 2006 
IN RE: 
-- 7- - - 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(O)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
y decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
P 
obert P. Wiemann, Director 
4 Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 058 51676 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The California Service Center Director denied the nonirnrnigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a chess club. The beneficiary is a chess player and teacher. The petitioner seeks 0-1 
classification of the beneficiary, as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics under section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), in order to employ her in the 
United States as an advanced chess teacher for females for an unspecified period of time at an annual salary of 
$6,000. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary has 
sustained recognition as being one of a small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits additional documentation. 
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in theJield 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. 9 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part, that: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the 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: 
(1) 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 national 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; 
WAC 04 058 51676 
Page 3 
(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 the 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 (0)(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. 
The beneficiary in this matter is a 29-year old native and citizen of Mongolia. The evidence on the record 
indicates that the beneficiary last entered the United States as a B-1 nonimmigrant alien on September 25,2003. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(l) requires the beneficiary to "continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability." The beneficiary intends to work as an instructor or coach in the United States. While a 
chess player and a chess instructor or coach certainly share knowledge of chess, the two rely on very different 
sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive chess 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 
worlung in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any 
profession in that field. fi ability as a baseball player does not 
imply that he also has extraor lnary a I it. 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. Nevertheless, recently this office has recognized 
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, the 
following balance is appropriate. In a case where an alien has clearly achieved 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. Specifically, in 
such a case, we will consider the level at which the alien acts as coach. 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. Thus, we will examine whether the petitioner has demonstrated the beneficiary's 
WAC 04 058 5 1676 
Page 4 
extraordinary ability as a coach or as a chess player. If the beneficiary has demonstrated extraordinary ability 
as a chess player, we will consider the level at which she has successfully coached. 
After a careful review of the record, it must be concluded that the petitioner has failed to overcome the 
grounds for denial of the petition. The record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary is an alien with 
extraordinary ability in chess. 
First, there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received an award equivalent to that listed at 8 C.F.R. 4 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A). Nor is the record persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary meets at least three of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awarak for excellence 
in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner alleges that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion based on her receipt of the "National Master title 
award from the Mongolian Chess Federation" and the "International Master Title award fiom the World Chess 
Federation (FIDE) . " 
The record contains a September 10, 2003 letter fiom the secretary general and FIDE delegate of the Mongolian 
Chess Federation. which states: 
[The beneficiary's] biggest achievements as chess sportswoman are as following: 
National Girls championship: gold medal-1 992 and 1994; silver medal-1 991 and 1993; 
bronze medal-1 989 
World Youth Championship: Germany 1992 and Hungary 1994 
Asian Junior Championship: Malaysia 1994, price [sic] 
World Junior Championship: Germany 1995; price and Colombia 1996 
National Women Championship: gold- 1 998; silver- 1994 and 1995; bronze-] 99 1, 1993, 
1997,1999 and 2000 
Asian Zonal Women championship: Uzbekistan 1995 
Asian Women team Championship: China 1999 
World Chess Olympiad: 1994, 1996 and 1998 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a 1995 "diploma" from the World Chess Federation (FIDE) "confirming" that 
the beneficiary had obtained the title of "Woman FIDE Master." The record also contains copies of documents 
identified by the petitioner as Mongolian National Championship Certificates; however, these documents are not 
accompanied by English translations. Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the 
documents, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 
103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted no evidence to establish that the Mongolian National 
Championships are nationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of chess. A competition or event 
does not achieve this status simply by identifying itself as a "national" or "international" event. 
Additionally, the petitioner submitted no evidence that the beneficiary's status as a FIDE master is a prize or 
award. Furthermore, as of December 29, 2005, the World Chess Federation does not list the beneficiary 
WAC 04 058 5 1676 
Page 5 
among the top fifty women players, and her rating of 2129, as shown on the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner, is well below the rating of 2402 for the individual listed as number 50 on the list of best players.' 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the field for which classzfication is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines orfields. 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion as she has maintained active membership in the 
World Chess Federation, U.S. Chess Federation, Mongolian Chess Federation, and the Los Angeles Club. The 
petitioner submitted no evidence that membership in these organizations is reserved for those of outstanding 
achievements in the field of chess. 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 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The 
petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
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 classijication is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such 
published material, and any necessaiy translation. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on the beneficiary's "published 
material" in the JanuaryIFebruary 2004 and MayIJune 2004 magazine Rank & File, published by the Southern 
California Chess Federation. We note, first, that the documentation submitted by the petitioner is subsequent to 
the filing date of the petition and therefore is not relevant in establishmg that the beneficiary met this criterion on 
the date the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant 
visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
Further, the documentation only indicates the results of matches played by the beneficiary and is included 
among many other results. The documentation submitted are not articles about the beneficiary's work and do 
not establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The petitioner failed to submit evidence relating to criteria numbers four and five. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or other major 
media. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits copies of three articles that it states establish that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. Although the petitioner states that the articles were published in the Los Angeles Chess Club Bulletin, 
the petitioner submits no evidence of when and where these articles were published. Furthermore, the petitioner 
submits no evidence that the Los Angeles Chess Club Bulletin is a professional journal or is major media in the 
chess field. 
Additionally, the petitioner did not assert and submitted no evidence that the beneficiary met this criterion prior to 
the appeal. The petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to 
provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner failed to submit the requested 
1 See www.fide. com. 
WAC 04 058 51676 
Page 6 
evidence and now submits it on appeal. However, the AAO will not consider this evidence for any purpose. 
See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
The appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of proceeding before the director. 
The evidence before the director does not establish that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
According to the petitioner, the beneficiary was employed by the Mongolian Chess Federation as "the Official 
Chess Instructor of the National Mongolian Women Chess Team." The petitioner submitted no evidence to 
corroborate this statement. See Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. We note that this is not one of the 
significant achievements identified by the secretary general of the Mongolian Chess Federation. Further, the 
petitioner submitted no evidence that this position was in a critical or essential capacity or that the Mongolian 
Women Chess Team is an organization with a distinguished reputation. The evidence does not establish that 
the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the 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. 
The petitioner states that the beneficiary will be hired at a "respectable salary." However, the petitioner 
submits no evidence that the proffered salary of $6,000 per year is among that paid to the highest 
compensated chess masters or instructors. The evidence does not establish that the beneficiary satisfies this 
criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the beneficiary has earned the title of International Master, the second 
highest title of the World Chess Federation. According to the petitioner, this puts the beneficiary among only 
four percent who qualify for this title. Nonetheless, the petitioner has not submitted documentary evidence to 
establish that the beneficiary has achieved sustained acclaim in the field of chess, either as a player or as an 
instructor. 
Beyond the decision of the director, we note that the petitioner has not submitted the mandatory consultation 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(5)(i)(A), which states, in pertinent part: 
Consultation with an appropriate U.S. peer group (which could include a person or persons with 
expertise in the field), labor andlor management organization regarding the nature of the work to 
be done and the alien's qualifications is mandatory before a petition for 0-1 or 0-2 classification 
can be approved. 
The record contains no documentation indicating that the petitioner obtained a consultation in accordance with 
the above regulation. Without the required consultation, the nonimmigrant visa petition cannot be approved. This 
deficiency constitutes an additional ground for denial of the petition. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afyd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
WAC 04 058 5 1676 
Page 7 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.