dismissed O-1A Case: Equestrian

(b)(6)
DATE: DEC 2 9 2014 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
�?!� 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to classify the beneficiary pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("Act"), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), 
as an alien with extraordinary ability in the field of athletics. According to Part 5 of the petition, the 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as an equestrian for a period of three years. 
After issuing a request for evidence (RFE) and then considering the evidence of record, the director 
denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "[t]he documentary evidence submitted with this brief establishes 
that [the beneficiary] has not only met his standard of proof, but that his is an [e]questrian of 
extraordinary ability." Upon review of the record, including the evidence submitted on appeal, we 
agree with the decision of the director and will dismiss the appeal. 
I. Law 
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. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii) states, in pertinent part, that: "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.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
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; 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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, m 
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 at8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(o)(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. 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 of the affiant and the manner in which the affiant acquired such 
information. 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In addition, we have 
held that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
Thus, in adjudicating the petition pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, USCIS 
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. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. Analysis 
We note that, while not addressed by the director, the record contains inconsistencies regarding the 
job duties of the beneficiary and the nature of the petitioner's business. According to the document, 
"Summary of the Terms of the Oral Agreement," between the petitioner and the beneficiary, the 
beneficiary's "primary responsibilities will include training and competing as an EQUESTRIAN." 
The petitioner listed the beneficiary's job title as equestrian on both the Form I-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker, and in its letter of support. The petitioner's letter of support also states that 
the beneficiary "would be a perfect addition to our roster of equestrians," and discusses the 
beneficiary's past as an equestrian, but does not include a description of the beneficiary's duties and 
does not make any reference to the beneficiary as a trainer, either in the past or as part of his duties 
for the petitioner. The director issued a request for evidence which stated that the petitioner "must 
provide an explanation of the competition, event or performance in which the beneficiary will 
participate" and "[a]n explanation of the nature of the events or activities." In response, the 
petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's itinerary, which states that the beneficiary "will be 
training and preparing riders for the following tentatively scheduled competitions, " but does not 
indicate that the beneficiary will be competing in any of the events. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(i) requires "evidence that the work which the alien is 
coming to the United States to continue is in the area of extraordinary ability." While previous 
riding experience as an equestrian may benefit a horse trainer, riders and trainers rely on very 
different sets of basic skills and thus, are not the same area of expertise. Although involving a 
different classification than in the instant petition, in Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. 
Accordingly, whether the beneficiary will work as an equestrian or a trainer is material. 
Specifically, if the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a trainer, it must submit the required 
initial evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility as a trainer. While the petitioner might also 
be able to demonstrate eligibility based on the beneficiary's accomplishments as a rider and evidence 
that training is also within his area of expertise, the petitioner may not combine the beneficiary's 
riding and training accomplishments to satisfy the initial evidence requirement of meeting three 
criteria. As will be discussed in further detail below, the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary is an alien of extraordinary ability as either an equestrian or as a trainer. 
Regarding the nature of the petitioner's business,. the petitioner's letter of support states that the 
business "provides equestrian arena architecture, construction, installation and footing products. We 
specialize in constructing premium riding rings through careful site analysis, proper site preparation 
and correct installation of exclusive surfacing products." The petitioner does not provide any 
evidence to demonstrate why such a business would require the services of either an equestrian or a 
horse trainer. In contrast, Form 1-129 states that the petitioner is an equestrian training center. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Id. The petitioner has not resolved the inconsistencies 
regarding the proposed employment or the exact nature of the petitioner's business. 
For the purposes of this decision, as the petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets at least three 
of the regulatory criterion required for this exclusive classification based solely on his accomplishments 
as a trainer, we will limit the discussion to his accomplishments as an equestrian. 
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. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director found that the petitioner did not establish "the level of the events in which the beneficiary 
competed." In addition, the director stated that the ribbons "fail[] to show the beneficiary has sustained 
international recognition." As evidence, the petitioner submitted thirty five ribbons won by the 
beneficiary between 1989 and 1994. Of the thirty five submitted ribbons, seventeen clearly state that 
they were awarded at the junior level. While the age of the competitors alone does not preclude the 
1 The petitioner does not claim the beneficiary meets or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories 
of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
competitiOn from being nationally or internationally recognized, it is the petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate that any competition the beneficiary won is qualifying. Where the competition is restricted 
to individuals of certain ages, the petitioner must explain how such an age-limited competition enjoys 
national or international recognition. 
We note that the record contains a letter from which states that the beneficiary won 
the " " but there is no legible evidence in the record in support 
of this statement. 2 The petitioner did not submit primary evidence of his receipt of the award. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or unavailability of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. According to the same regulation, only where the 
petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner 
rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable 
may the petitioner rely on affidavits. In this case, while the petitioner submitted letters, the 
petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that primary evidence and 
secondary evidence do not exist or is unavailable. Regardless, the letters that the petitioner provided 
. are not affidavits as the affiants did not swear to or affirm the truth of the information before an 
officer authorized to administer oaths or affirmations who has, having confirmed the declarant's 
identity, administered the requisite oath or affirmation. See Black's Law Dictionary 58 (9th Ed., 
West 2009). Nor, in lieu of having been signed before an officer authorized to administer oaths or 
affirmations, do they contain the requisite statement, permitted by Federal law, that the signers, in 
signing the statements, certify the truth of the statements, under penalty of perjury. 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1746. 
On appeal, as in response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner relies on a letter from 
President of the . to establish the recognition 
of two of the awards. Mr. states that "[a]t the national Championship on two occasions in 1989 
and 1990, ... [the beneficiary] was crowned 
� • . 
"b ut 
does not provide any additional information . Although the appellate brief asserts that "these awards 
were not obtained at the junior level," according to the handwritten information on the ribbons 
submitted, both of these ribbons were awarded at the junior level. In addition, an award with 
"National," "International," or "Excellence" in the title does not automatically elevate the award to a 
nationally or internationally recognized award. In fact, it does not necessarily demonstrate that the 
awards are national or international in nature. Without documentary evidence reflecting the national 
or international recognition of the award, the name of the award alone is insufficient. 
The appellate brief asserts that because "these competitions were organized and sponsored by the 
.. . it is clear that the level of events and competitions in which the 
beneficiary has competed have been the highest level of competition available in Mexico." The 
petitioner did not, however, submit corroborating evidence to establish that any of the beneficiary's 
ribbons are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Not every competition sponsored 
by the automatically rises to the level of a nationally recognized event. Furthermore, only a 
limited number of the beneficiary's the ribbons indicate that they were awarded by . Without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions in an appellate brief will not satisfy the 
2 We note that in addition to the legible photocopies and photographs of the beneficiary's ribbons, the initial 
filing included a set of photocopies which are mostly illegible. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions in an appellate brief do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n. 2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1, 3 n. 2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Without documentary evidence to establish the national or international recognition of the ribbons, the 
petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility under the plain language of 8 C.F.R. 
214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(1 ). 
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. 
The director found that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary's membership in the 
and the met this criterion. 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, 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. 
Regarding the the petitioner submitted an undated letter thanking the beneficiary for joining 
both the and the 
_ 
and printouts from the 
website. These materials provide: "Equestrian competitors, leisure riders, coaches, fans and 
enthusiasts each share a special bond with the horse. This commonality defines the membership of 
the " We note that the petitioner has never claimed that membership in L satisfies this 
criterion and that the petitioner did not submit any evidence regarding the membership requirements 
for The appellate brief asserts that membership in is "extremely selective" and that 
"(t]he organization is renowned for its high caliber equestrian members that compete in elite 
equestrian competitions throughout the world." The petitioner, however, did not submit any 
evidence that the beneficiary is anything other than a dues paying member. Furthermore, the 
petitioner did not submit any evidence, such as by-laws or other documentary evidence of the 
membership requirements to support the appellate brief or to establish that the association requires 
outstanding achievements as a condition of membership, as required by the plain language of the 
regulation. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions in an appellate brief 
will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n. 2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
Moreover, the Internet materials the petitioner did provide suggest that membership is open to 
leisure riders, coaches, fans and enthusiasts. 
Similarly, regarding the beneficiary's membership in the the petitioner did not submit any 
documentary evidence, such as by-laws or membership requirements to establish that outstanding 
achievements are an essential condition of membership. Rather, the petitioner relies on the letter 
from Mr. which discusses the membership process to be a trainer member. As previously 
discussed, the petitioner's role as a trainer cannot be combined with his accomplishments as an 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
equestrian to establish his extraordinary ability. While we note that the letter indicates that the 
beneficiary was a "Rider member" before becoming a trainer member, the letter does not establish 
the requirements to become a "Rider member." Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) requires evidence of "membership in associations" in the plural. 
Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii) are worded in the plural. Specifically, 
the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4) only requires service on a single judging panel. 
Moreover, when the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o) wishes to include the singular within the plural, it 
expressly does so, as when it states at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D) that the petitioner must submit " [a] 
written advisory opinion(s) from the appropriate consulting entity or entities." Thus, it can be inferred 
that the plural in any regulatory criterion has meaning. In a different .context, federal courts have upheld 
users' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation? 
For the reasons above, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility under the plain 
language of 8 C.P.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.P.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. Some newspapers, such as the 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.4 In addition, it is insufficient to establish eligibility 
for this criterion based on any material that only lists, mentions, or indicates the petitioner's name, 
such as the posting of a rider's results from a riding event in a newspaper. A mention of the 
beneficiary's name does not automatically meet the plain language of the regulation. See, e. g., 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
The petitioner submitted eight articles with certified English translations. The ruticles "[The 
beneficiary] ' "[The beneficiary], 
" and "[The beneficiary] · " do not include the source of 
the article, such as the name of the publication, and, therefore, the petitioner has not established that the 
3 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
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, would not have significant national distribution. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or major media.5 We note that the 
petitioner submitted two identical articles titled "[The beneficiary] 
_ 
' which appear in two different publications. The second article, which includes the 
source, will be discussed below. 
The articles ' and 
and [the beneficiary] which reference the beneficiary's success as a junior-level 
competitor, appeared in . According to the information the petitioner submitted, the 
weekly publication is "an artistically designed newspaper which recognizes the cultural diversity of all 
Hispanic communities while uniting them through their common faith." The newspaper has 1100 
subscriptions with "500 [m]ailed to [m]ajor [c]orp[orations] & [a]dvertising [a]gencies" and a 
circulation total of 30,000 for New Jersey and four boroughs of New York City. 
The second article titled "[The beneficiary] 
_ 
appeared in _ The petitioner submitted information about the "information agency" 
and specifically its website at www whir h launched in 
approximately eight years after the publication of the article in _ on June The 
information submitted does not provide any information for the publication and thus, has no 
probative value. 
The article "[The beneficiary] ' appeared 
in According to the information submitted, "[a] run of 25[,]000 copies distributed daily 
in all regions of ' with "[a]n average of 75[,]000 readers per day." In addition, according to 
the same information, there are "100 newspapers that are read in the state." The petitioner did not, 
however, submit any information to establish how ranks in comparison to the other 
published newspapers or to demonstrate that a paper published in one state in Mexico is major 
media. 
The article "[The beneficiary] · 
_ 
not, however, provide any information to establish that 
I appeared in The petitioner did 
is major media. 
For the reasons above, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility under the plain 
language of 8 C.F.R. 2 14.2(o)(3)(iii)(B )(3). 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director found that the "record is devoid of documentation relating to the beneficiary's past 
employment." The petitioner has asserted that the beneficiary meets this criterion in the initial 
filing, the response to the director's request for evidence and on appeal. The appellate brief asserts 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion based upon his membership in the The 
5 We note that the petitioner asserts that the article "[The beneficiary] ' was 
published in but the submitted copy of the article does not include any information on the 
source. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
plain language of the regulation requires that "the alien has been employed" and there is no evidence 
that the beneficiary was ever employed by 
Regarding the according to the letter from Mr. , also a trainer, the beneficiary "has been 
working as [a] trainer." The petitioner did not, however, provide an organizational chart or other 
similar evidence to establish how this role fits within the overall hierarchy of the organization or to 
differentiate the beneficiary's role from that of other trainers. Regardless, as previously stated, the 
beneficiary's role as a trainer cannot be considered here in combination with his riding 
accomplishments. Regarding the beneficiary's time as a rider for there is no indication that 
the beneficiary was "employed" in a qualifying role by the organization. Rather, the beneficiary 
competed as a member. 
For the reasons above, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility under the plain 
language of 8 C.P.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B )(7). 
B. Suinmary 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under at least three criteria 
at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). Therefore, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary satisfies the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. In addition, the evidence 
in the aggregate does not establish the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim as 
required by 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) or that the beneficiary has a level of expertise indicating that he 
is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii) 
III. CONCLUSION 
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.