dismissed O-1A Case: Equestrian Athletics

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.s. Departmentof HomelandSecurily
i S.CitizenshipandimmigrationSemces
AdministrameAppealsOWce(AAO)
20 MassachuseusAve..N.W., MS2090
Washington.DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: 3 }$2 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petitionfor a NonimmigrantWorker underSection10l(a)(15)(O)(i)of the Immigrationand
NationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ l 10l(a)(15)(O)(i)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebe advisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyapplied the law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou.
PerryRhew
hi f. AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.useis.gov
Pace2
DISCUSSION: The Director,CaliforniaServiceCenter,deniedthenonimmigrantvisapetition.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal.The AAO will dismisstheappeal.
The petitioner,a DutchWarmbloodhorsebreedingandtrainingfacility, filed this petitionto classifythe
beneficiaryasan0-1 nommmigrantpursuantto section10l(a)(15)(O)(i)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct
(theAct),8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i),asanalienof extraordinaryabilityin athletics.Thepetitionerseeksto
employthebeneficiaryin thepositionof for aperiodof threeyears.
The director denied the petition based on a conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the
beneficiary hasreceived "sustainednational or international acclaim" or to demonstratethat he is one of the
small percentagewho hasrisen to the very top of his field as a horsetrainer. In reachingthis conclusion the
directordeterminedthattheevidencesubmittedsatisfiedthe plain languageof only two of theregulatory
criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B),of whichat leastthreearerequiredto meetthethresholdevidentiary
requirementsfor therequestedclassification.Further,thedirectordeterminedthattheprofferedpositionof
horse trainer does not constitute continuing work in the alien's area of extraordinary ability, as the
beneficiary'sdocumentedachievementsareasa competitive equestrianathlete.
At the outset,it mustbe notedthatCongressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by
requiringthroughthe statutethat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor international
acclaim"and present"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection 101(a)(15)(O)(i)of the
Act. The implementingregulationat 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) statesthat an alien can establishsustained
nationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,specificallya major,internationally
recognizedaward. Absentthe receiptof suchan award,the regulationoutlinescategoriesof specific objective
evidence.8 C.F.R.§2I4.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1)through(8). Thepetitionermustsubmitqualifyingevidencefor the
alien underat leastthreeof the eight regulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establishthe basiceligibility
requirements.
Onappealcounselassertsthatthepetitionerestablishedthebeneficiary'seligibilityunderthreeof theregulatory
criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).Specifically,counselstatesthat,in additionto thetwo criteriaunder
whichthedirectorfoundthebeneficiaryeligible,thepetitionerhasestablishedthatthebeneficiarywill command
a high salary or other remuneration for his services,pursuantto 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). Further,counsel
objectsto the director'sfinding thatthe beneficiarywould not becontinuingwork in his areaof extraordinary
ability, andexplainsthat "athleticcompetitionsarea direct duty of thetrainer" at thepetitioner'sfacility. Finally,
counsel assertsthat the petitioner is submitting additional documentationand affidavits to establishthat the
beneficiaryis "attheverytopof hisfield of endeavor.
Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAO will upholdthedirector'sdecisionanddismisstheappeal.
I. THE LAW
Section10ha)(15)(O)(i)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i),providesfor theclassificationof a qualified
alienwho:
Page3
hasextraordinaryability in thesciences,arts,education,business,or athleticswhich hasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor internationalacclaim. . . andwhoseachievements
havebeenrecoenizedin the field throughextensivedocumentation,andseeksto enterthe
UnitedStatestocontinueworkin theareaof extraordinaryability . .
Theregulationat 8C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii)defines,in pertinentpart:
Extraordinaryability in thefield of science,education,business,or athleticsmeansa levelof
expertiseindicating that the personis oneof the small percentagewho havearisento the very
top of the field of endeavor.
Theextraordinaryability provisionsof thisvisaclassificationareintendedto behighlyrestrictivefor aliensin
thefieldsof business,education,athletics,andthesciences.See59 FR41818,41819(August 15, 1994);137
Cong.Rec.Sl8242, 18247(daily ed.,Nov. 26, 1991)(comparinganddiscussingthe lower standardfor the
arts).
Inapolicymemorandum,thelegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService(INS)emphasized:
It mustberememberedthatthestandardsfor O-l aliensin thefieldsof business,education,
athletics,andthesciencesareextremelyhigh. TheO-l classificationshouldbereservedonly
for thosealienswhohavereachedthe verytop of theiroccupationor profession.TheO-l
classificationis substantiallyhigherthantheold H-lB prominentstandard.Officers involved
in theadjudicationof thesepetitionsshouldnot"waterdown"theclassificationbyapproving
O-1 petitionsfor prominentaliens.
Memorandum,LawrenceWeinig,Acting Asst.Comm'r.,INS, "Policy Guidelinesfor the Adjudicationof O
andP Petitions"(June25, 1992),
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)states,in pertinentpart:
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in thefields of science,education,
business,or athletics. An alien of extraordinaryability in the fields of science,education,
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and
recognitionfor achievementsin thefield ofexpertise by providingevidenceof:
(A) Receiptof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward,suchastheNobelPrize;or
(B) At leastthreeof thefollowingformsof documentation:
(1) Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof nationallyor internationallyrecognized
prizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor;
Pace4
(2) Documentationof the alien's membershipm associationsin the field for which
classificationis sought,which require outstandingachievementsof their
members,asjudgedby recognizedor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor
fields;
(3) Publishedmaterialin professionalor majortradepublicationsor majormedia
aboutthealien,relatingtothealien'sworkin thefield for whichclassificationis
sought,whichshallincludethetitle,date,andauthorof suchpublishedmaterial,
andanynecessarytranslation;
(4) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipationona panel,or individuallyasajudgeof the
workof othersin thesameor in analliedfieldof specializationtothatfor which
classification is sought;
(5) Evidenceof the alien's original scientific, scholarly,or business-related
contributionsof majorsignificanceinthefield;
(6) Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesinthefield,inprofessional
journals,orothermajormedia;
(7) Evidencethat the alien hasbeenemployedin a critical or essentialcapacityfor
organizationsandestablishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
(8) Evidencethatalienhaseithercommandeda highsalaryor will commanda high
salaryorotherremunerationfor services,evidencedbycontractsorotherreliable
evidence.
(C) If the criteria in paragraph(o)(3)(iii) of this sectiondo not readily apply to the
beneficiary'soccupation,thepetitionermaysubmitcomparableevidencein orderto
establishthebencficiary'seligibility.
Thedecisionof U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)in a particularcaseis dependentuponthe
qualityof theevidencesubmittedby thepetitioner,notjust thequantityof theevidence.The merefact thatthe
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not
necessarilyestablishthatthealienis eligiblefor 0-1 classification.59Fed.Reg.41818,41820(August15.
1994).
Therefore,in determiningthe beneficiary'seligibility underthesecriteria,the AAO will follow a two-step
approachwhereinwewill firstlooktoseewhetherthepetitionerhassubmittedevidenceto satisfytheregulatory
criterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)or, in thealternative,evidenceto satisfyat leastthreeof theeight
regulatorycriteria setforth at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). If thepetitionersubmitsevidenceto satisfytheplain
languageof therequisitenumberof criteria,thentheAAOwill determinewhetherthequantityandqualityof the
Paec5
evidenceis consistentwith the statutoryrequirementof "extensivedocumentation,"andthe regulatorydefinition
of "extraordinaryability inathletics
II. ANALYSIS
The first issueaddressedby the director is whether the petitioner establishedthat the beneficiary qualifies as
an alien of extraordinary ability athletics through submission of evidence to satisfy the regulatory
requirementsat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)or (B).
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
Receiptof a major.internationallyrecognizedaward,suchastheNobelPrize
If thepetitionerestablishesthroughthesubmissionof documentaryevidencethatthebeneficiaryhasreceived
a major, internationallyrecognizedaward pursuantto 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meetits
burdenof proofwith respectto thebeneficiary'seligibility for O-l classification.Theregulationsciteto 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,
internationalrecoenitionmayincludethe PulitzerPrize,the AcademyAward, and(mostrelevantin thefield
of athletics)anOlympic medal.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerdid notsubmitevidenceto satisfythiscriterion. Encounsel'sbrief,he
did notcontestthefindingsof thedirectorfor thiscriterionor offer additionalarguments.TheAAO, therefore,
considersthisissueto beabandoned.SeeSepulvedav.U.S.Art'vGen.,40I F.3d1226,1228n.2 (l 1thCir. 2005);
Hristovv.Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at*l, *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,20I I) (thecourtfound
theplaintiff'sclaimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemonappealto theAAO).
As thereis no evidencethat the beneficiaryhasreceiveda major,internationallyrecognizedaward,the
petitionermustestablishthe beneficiary'seligibility underat leastthreeof theeightcriteriasetforth at 8
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The director determined that the petitioner's evidence satisfied two of these
criteria. With regardto thesix criteriaunderwhichthedirectorfoundthebeneficiaryineligible,thepetitioner
conteststhe director'sfindings with respectto only one criterion on appeal,specifically,the criterion at 8
C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8))
Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof nationally or internationallyrecognizedprizesor awards
for excellencein thefield of endeavor
| Thepetitionerhasnot claimedto meetanyof theregulatorycategoriesof evidencenotdiscussedin this
decision.specificallythosesetforthat8C.F.R.§§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4),(5)and(6). TheAAO findsthatthe
director correctly determined that the petitioner did not submit evidence related to thesecriteria, and the
petitionerraisesnoobjectionto thedirector'sdeterminationonappeal.
Page6
The petitionerhassubmittedtwo lettersfrom the confirmingthe beneficiary's
receiptof thefollowing awardsin theequestriansport:
The petitionersubmittedcopiesof theseandotherawardsreceivedby the beneficiaryin showjumping
competition,with Englishtranslations,in supportof thepetition. Thepetitionerhasalsosubmitteda letter
from the indicatingthat the beneficiaryis oneof 535 memberswho are
jumpingathletes,andoneof twelvejumpingathleteswhohavebeengiventhedesignationof
level,describedas"thehighstaterankof theathletesin Russia."Theletter
explainsthat athletesmustdemonstrateachievementsat the GrandPrix level to receivethis designation.
ThedirectordeterminedthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterionandtheAAO will notdisturbthis finding.
Docwnentation of the alien's membership m associations in thefield for which classification
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members asjudged by recognized
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields.
Theplainlanguageof theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2)requires"[dlocumentationof thealien's
membershipin associationsin the field for which is classificationis sought,which requireoutstanding
achievementsof theirmembers,asjudgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesor
fields." The pettuonermust showthat the associationrequiresoutstandingachievementas an essential
condition for admissionto membership. Membershiprequirementsbasedon employmentor activity in a given
field. minimumeducationor experience,standardizedtestscores,gradepointaverage,recommendationsby
Page7
colleaeuesor currentmembers,or paymentof duesdo not satisfythis criterion as suchrequirementsdo not
constitute outstandineachievements. Further, the overall prestigeof a given associationis not determinative:
theissuehereis membershiprequirementsratherthantheassociation'soverallreputation.
Thepetitionerinitially submittedtheFormI-129andsupportingevidencewithoutreferenceto theeligibility
criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).On October19,2010,thedirectorissueda requestfor additional
evidence(RFE)instructingthepetitionerto provideadditionalevidencepertainingto at leastthreeof theeight
regulatorycriteria. In responseto the RFE, counselindicatedthat the petitionerwas submittingevidence
addressingthecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1),(2) and(7), aswell ascomparableevidenceof the
beneficiary'seligibility pursuantto 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C).
The only explanationthat accompaniedthe counsel'scitation to the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §§
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(/), (2) and(7) wasthefollowing:
(Thebeneficiary]hasbeena memberof the
the thatwasfounded
in 1923and is oneof the leadingsports institutions of Russian[sic and countriesof Eastern
Europe. At present,[the beneficiary]is the only an
theteamof The heldby
|the beneficiary] is the instructor of highestqualification of the
He represented the as a member of the
. Since 1987,[the beneficiary]is a leadingrider of the and
represents at national and international competitions. Please see the attached catalog
identifying the elite sporting membersof the
Basedon this explanation, it was unclear how the submitted evidence related to the criterion at 8 C.F.R.
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2),and the petitionerdid not adequatelyaddressthe significanceof the submitted
evidence.TheAAO notesthatthedirectorissuedadetailedrequestfor evidenceinstructingthepetitionerto
explainthe significanceof any evidencesubmittedin responseandhow it establisheseligibility for the
classification underthe regulatorycriteria. Failure to submit requestedevidencethat precludesa material line
of inquiryshallbegroundsfor denyingthepetition.8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(l4).
The petitioner'sresponseto the RFEincludeda letterdatedNovember3, 2010from the
Club. The letter confirms that the beneficiary commenced military service in December 1987 and was
appointedas an athlete-instructorin the equestriansquadronof the The letter documentsthe
beneficiary'sprogressivemilitaryranksandpositionswithin the through2008,andindicatesthathis
roles within the organizationhave includedchief trainerof the jumping team(1998),
chief trainerof equestriansquadronof the FederalStateInstituteof the
Sincetransferringfrommilitaryserviceto thereservein
2008.he hasheldthe role of instructorof thejumpingteamof
Page8
In denyingthe petition,the directordeterminedthat "no evidencewassubmittedin relationto criterion
numbertwo." Ratherit appearsthat thedirector consideredevidencerelative to the beneficiary's membership
i underthecriterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7).
In counsefsbrief,hedid notcontestthefindingsof thedirectorfor thiscriterionor offeradditionalarguments.
The AAO, therefore,considersthis issueto beabandoned.SeeSepulvedav. US. Att'y Gen.,401 F.3d 1226,1228
n. 2 ( I lth Cir. 2005);Hristovv.Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,
20I 1)(thecourtfoundtheplaintiff'sclaimstobeabandonedashefailedtoraisethemonappealtotheAAO).
While the documentaryevidencesubmittedby the petitionerreflectsthe beneficiary'smembershipon the
equestnanteam,the documentaryevidencefails to reflect that this organization requiresoutstanding
achievementsof its members,asjudged by recognizednationalor internationalexperts,asa condition for
admissionor membership. The recordshowsthat that the beneficiary wasappointedto the questrian
squadronwhenhecommencedmilitary servicein December1987at 18yearsof age.The AAO cannot
concludebasedon the evidenceon recordthat his initial appointmentto the was baseduponhis
outstandine achievementsin the sport, as opposed to being a condition or responsibility of his military
service. While the beneficiary was eventually awarded the 1I years after his
appointmentto it is evident that suchdesignationis not a condition for appointmentto this institution.
As the petitioner has not addressedthis criterion on appeal, the AAO will not discuss this issue further.
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 orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthecriterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3),it mustbe
primarily"about"thebeneficiaryand,asstatedin theregulations,be printedin professionalor majortrade
publicationsorothermajormedia.Toqualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistribution.An alienwouldnotearnacclaimatthenationallevelfroma localpublication.Some
Pace4
newspapers.suchastheNew YorkTimes,nominally servea particularlocality but would qualify asmajor media
becauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlikesmalllocalcommunitypapers.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionersubmittednoevidenceto satisfythiscriterionandcounselraises
no specific objection to this finding on appeal.
Althoughneitherthepetitionernorcounselhaveclaimedeligibility underthiscriterion,eitherat thetimeof
filing or on appeal the AAO acknowledgesthat the evidence submitted on appeal includes: (1) a summary
translation of a table found on the which summarizes the
beneficiary'sresultsin equestriancompetitionduring2009;(2) anarticletitled '
whichreportsthebeneficiary'sresultsin twoevents;(3)
uncertifiedEnglishtranslationsof on-linearticles(originalarticlesnotprovided)whichreporttheresultsof
the ompetitionfor showjumping
alumni(2001); (4) photographsof the beneficiary,with Russianlanguagecaptions,which appearon a
Russianequestrianwebsite (5) un-translatedarticles from the Russian websites
"Peski:
and(6) anonlinearticlepublis
The article indicates that the
beneficiarytied for fifth placein the in whichriderscompeted
for a brand-newVolvo automobile.
Theevidencesubmittedon appealdoesnotsatisfythe plainlanguageof theregulatorycriteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3).Noneof thesubmittedevidenceisclearly"about"thebeneficiary.At most,theevidence
appearsto confirmhis participationandplacementin certainequestriancompetitions.Publishedcompetition
resultsthatmerelyindicatethebeneficiary'seventsandfinishes,alongwiththoseof othercompetitors,arenot
sufficientto establisheligibility for this criterion. Theregulationclearlyrequiresa writtenarticleaboutthe
beneficiary,in lightof thepetitioner'sburdentosubmitthetitle,date,andauthorof suchpublishedmaterial.
Thepetitionerdid notsubmittheoriginalsourcematerialfor theforeignlanguagearticlesthatwereaccompanied
by uncertifiedtranslations,and did not provide any translationfor the two Russianlanguagedocumentsthat were
providedfromanoriginalsource.Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)providesin pertinentpart:
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign languagesubmitted to USCIS shall be
accompaniedbya full Englishlanguagetranslationwhichthetranslatorhascertifiedascomplete
andaccurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthatheor sheiscompetentto translatefromthe
foreignlanguageintoEnglish.
- Evenwith nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbegivento theplacementof thearticle.For
example,anarticlethatappearsin the WashingtonPost,but in a sectionthatis distributedonly in Fairfax
County,Virginia,for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page10
Ascitedabove,theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3)specificallyrequiresthatanyforeignlanguagedocument
thatissubmittedto USCISmustbeaccompaniedby afull andcertifiedEnglishlanguagetranslation.Becausethe
petitionerfailedto submitfull andcertifiedEnglishlanguagetranslations,it failedto complywith thisregulation.
As such.theAAO cannotdeterminewhethertheevidencesupportsthepetitioner'sclaims. Accordingly,the
evidenceisnotprobativeandwill notbeaccordedanyweightin thisproceeding.
Thepetitionerfailedto submitevidencethatmeetsthecriterionat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3).
Evidence that the alien has beenemployedin a critical or essentialcapacityfor organizations
and establishmentsthat have a distinguished reputation
Theplainlanguageof theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7)requiresthepetitionertodemonstratethat
thebeneficiaryhasbeenemployedinacriticaloressentialcapacity,thathisemploymentin thiscapacitywasfor
organizationsor establishments,andthatthoseorganizationsor establishmentshavea distinguishedreputation.
The director determinedthat the petitionersubmittedevidenceto satisfy this criterion, but did not discussthe
basisof thisfinding. Consideringtheevidenceandexplanationprovidedin responseto theRFE,asdiscussed
underthecriterionat8C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2),it appearsthatthedirectordeterminedthatthebeneficiary
wasemployedin a critical or essentialcapacityfor the
basedonhisleadershiprolesas TheAAO
agreesthatthepetitionerhassubmittedevidencetomeettheplainlanguageofthiscriterion.
Evidence that alien has either commandeda high salary or will commanda high salary or other
remunerationfor services,evidencedby contracts or other reliable evidence
The director determinedthat the beneficiary doesnot meetthis criterion, observing t.hat"the proposedsalary
of $40.000peryeardoesnotappearto bea highsalaryin thiscontext."Thedirectorobservedthatanyother
salarythebeneficiarymayreceive,suchasprizemoney"mustbewon." Thedirectoralsofoundthatthere
wasno evidencethatthebeneficiaryreceivedsubstantialremunerationin thepast,andfoundnoobjective
comparisonshowingthatthebeneficiaryhascommandedor wouldcommandahighsalaryor remunerationin
relationtoothersin hisfieldof endeavor.
The petitioner's initial evidence included a copy of the petitioner'semploymentagreementwith the
beneficiary attachedwith his compensationandbenefitspackage. The packageis outlined asfollows:
Paeei l
In the requestfor evidence,the director advisedthat the petitioner that the initial evidencewas insufficient to
establishthat the beneficiaryhascommandeda high salaryor other significantly higher remunerationfor
servicescomparedto othersin the field. The director requestedthat the petitioner submit additional evidence,
suchasastatisticalcomparisonof thesalariesin beneficiary'sfieldof endeavorfromtheEconomicResearch
Institute,or like organization.
In responseto the RFE, counselstatedthat the beneficiarymeetsthe eligibility requirementsat 8 C.F.R.
§§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(/),(2) and (7) and did not further addressthe beneficiary'seligibility under this
erllerlon,
On appeal, counsel assertsthat the director incorrectly determined that the beneficiary does not meet the
criterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8).Counselprovidesthefollowing explanation:
The petitionerhasnot submittedany documentaryevidenceof the wagedatafrom which counselclaims to have
derivedtheaveragesalaryfigureof Goingon recordwithoutsupportingdocumentary
evidenceis notsufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin theseproceedings.MatterofSoffici,
22 I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm'r1998)(citingMatter of TreasureCraf)of California, 14I&N Dec. 190(Reg.
Comm'r 1972)). Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertionsof counsel will not satisfy
thepetitioner'sburdenof proof. Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo notconstituteevidence.Matter of
Obaighena,19I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);Matter of Iaureano, 19I&N Dec. 1(BIA 1983);Matter of
Ramire&Sanche:,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
Further,the petitionerhasnot establishedthat the uncorroboratedsalaryinformationfor the positionof
"ridineinstructor"isa relevantpointof comparisonfor thebeneficiary'sproposedpositionastheheadtrainer
for a specialtyhorsebreedingandtrainingfacility thatdevelopsanimalscapableof competingat thehighest
levelsof the equestriansport. Again,the petitionerdid not provideany supportingdocumentationwith
respectto thesalaryinformationcitedbycounsel,andtheAAO cannotconcludethata "ridinginstructor"and
a "headtrainer"aresubstantiallysimilaroccupations.
Page12
Moreover, the petitioner'srelianceon datalimited to local wagesin the Detroit, Michigan geographicalareais
not an appropriatebasisfor comparisonin demonstratingthat thebeneficiary'searningsconstitutea high
salarycomparedtoothersin thefield. Therecordisvoid of reliableearningsdatashowingthatthepetitioner
will receivea "highsalary"or "highremuneration"in comparisonwith thoseperformingsimilarwork. See,
e.g.MatterofPrice,20I&N Dec.953,954(Assoc.Comm'r.1994)(consideringprofessionalgolfer'searnings
versusotherPGATourgolfers);seealsoGrimsonv.INS,934F.Supp.965,968(N.D.Ill. 1996)(considering
NHL enforcer'ssalaryversusotherNHL enforcers);Muni v.INS,891F. Supp.440,444-45(N. D. Ill. 1995)
(comparing salary of NHL defensiveplayer to salary of other NHL defensemen). In the presentmatter, the
documentaryevidencesubmittedby thepetitionerdoesnotestablishthatthebeneficiaryhasreceivedor will
receiveahighsalaryorhighremunerationforservicesin relationtoothersin hisfield.
Finally,theAAO notesthatthebeneficiary'sproposedremunerationpackage,claimedby counselon appeal
asfalling between$100,000to $150,000,appearsto beinflatedcomparedto thecompensationpackageand
figuresattachedtothebeneficiary'soriginalemploymentagreement.Counselhasnotexplainedhowthenew
figures were derived. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistenciesin the record by
independentobjective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencieswill not suffice
unlessthe petitioner submitscompetentobjective evidencepointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19
I&N Dec.582,591-92(BIA 1988). Withoutsuchexplanation,USCISwouldrelyon thefiguressetforthat
thetimeof filing, whichincludea $40,000basesalaryandadditionalcompensationandbenefits,for a total
compensationestimatedbetween$50,000and$65,000.
Thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedevidenceonappealtoovercomethedirector'sdetermination.Thepetitioner
hasnotestablishedthatthebeneficiary'scompensationpackagesatisfiestheregulatorycriterionat 8 C.F.R.
§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8).
ComparableEvidence
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)providesthatanalienof extraordinaryabilityin thefieldsof science,
education,businessor athleticsmustdemonstratesustainednationalor internationalacclaimandrecognitionfor
achievementsin the field of expertiseby providingevidenceof receiptof a major internationallyrecognized
awardpursuantto 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), or by submitting evidenceto satisfy at leastthreeof the eight
forms of documentation set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C)furtherprovides"[ilf thecriteriain paragraph(o)(3)(iii)of thesectiondonotreadilyapplyto
thebeneficiary'soccupation,thepetitionermaysubmitcomparabieevidencein ordertoestabiishthebeneficiary's
eligibility." It is clearfrom the useof theword "must"in 8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii) thatthe rule,notthe
exception,is that the petitioneris requiredto submitevidenceto meetat leastthreeof the regulatory
criteria.Thus,it is thepetitioner'sburdento explainwhytheregulatorycriteriaarenotreadilyapplicableto the
beneficiary'soccupationandhowtheevidencesubmittedis "comparable"totheobjectiveevidencerequiredat8
C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1)through(8).
The petitioner doesnot specifically claim eligibility under the "comparableevidence" regulation on appeal,
butdid indicatethatit wassubmittingcomparableevidenceof thebeneficiary'seligibility in responseto the
Page13
requestfor evidence. This comparableevidence,asexplainedby counselin his letterdatedNovember17,
internationalcompetitionamongthe world'sbest leagueson all continents." The AAO notesthat the
beneficiary'ssuccessfulparticipationin nationallyor internationallyrecognizedathletic competitionsis
properlyconsideredunderthe criterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(/), andthe directordeterminedthat
the beneficiary metthis criterion.
Further.the petitionerhasclaimedeligibility underthecriteria at 8 C.F.R.§§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1),(2), (7)
and (8). The regulatory languageprecludesthe considerationof comparableevidencein this case,asthere is
no indication that eligibility for 0-1 classification in the beneficiary'soccupationas a horsetrainer cannotbe
establishedby submittingdocumentationrelevantto at leastthreeof the eight criteria at 8 C.F.R.§
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).
The AAO further acknowledgesthat the petitionerhassubmittedfour new affidavits on appealfrom personsin
the beneficiary'sfield who attestto the beneficiary'squalificationsfor the requestedclassification.Counseldoes
not purportto submittheseaffidavits with respectto any one of the eight evidentiarycriteria at 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).Hadthepetitionersubmittedevidenceto meetthreeof theeightevidentiarycriteria,the
AAO wouldconsidertheseaffidavitsindeterminingwhethertheevidencein theaggregatedemonstratesthatthe
beneficiaryhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimand is oneof the small percentagewho has
risento thevery top of thefield of endeavor.
Summary
The AAO affirms the director'sdeterminationthat the petitionerhasfailed to demonstratethe beneficiary's
receiptof a major,internationallyrecognizedaward,or thathemeetsat leastthreeof theeightcategoriesof
evidencethatmustbesatisfiedto establishtheminimumeligibility requirementsnecessaryto qualifyasan
alienof extraordinaryability in athletics. 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). Accordingly,theappealwill be
dismissed.
B. Intentto Continueto Work in theAreaof ExtraordinaryAbility
The remainingissueaddressedby thedirectoris whetherthe beneficiaryintendsto continuework in his areaof
extraordinaryability.
This petitionerseeksto classifythebeneficiaryasanalienwith extraordinaryability asa specializedhorse
trainer. The statuteand regulationsrequirethat the beneficiaryseekto continuework in his areaof
extraordinaryability in the United States. See section 10l(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(15)(O)(i):8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(i).
The director determinedthat "training at a breeding/training facility is not relatedto a specific athletic event
or eventsand doesnot constitute continuing in the work of athletic performanceat the extraordinary level."
Paec 14
The director further found that "there is no evidencethat developing horsesrequiresbeing, or having been,an
equestrianrider or that thereare any recognizedstandardsevaluatingor rankingtrainers." Finally, the
directorfoundthat"thereisnoevidencethatthebeneficiaryhasachievedanysustainedacclaimin thefieldof
horsetrainine.
Thepetitioner'soffer letterto thebeneficiaryindicatesthathewill fill thepositionof headtrainer,andnotes
thatthepetitionervaluesthebeneficiary'sexperiencein workingwith horsesthathaveGrandPrixjumping
potential.Thepetitionerindicatesthatit will providethebeneficiary"anopportunityto train,competeand
market horsesfor the top tier markets for jumper, hunter, equitation." The petitioner further statesthat its
objectiveis "tocompetein reeionalandnationalfinalsfor youngjumpers.
The beneficiary'sspecific duties, as outlined in an attachmentto his employmentagreementincluding:
supervisingdaily specializedtrainingandconditioningof horses;supervisingothertrainersin grooming,
tacking,and daily care of horses;meetingwith the ownersto review horses'feeding plans,conditioning,
healthcarerequirements;assistingwiththesaleof horses,includingselection,pricing,pre-salegrooming,and
actualshowingandsale;anddesigningandreviewingtrainingplansandprogresswith theowners.
At the time of filing, the petitioner submitteda letter from horsetrainer and who,
like the beneficiary. was a memberof the Russianmilitary equestrianteam. statesthat the
beneficiaryis "deeplyskilled in caring for anddevelopingyounghorses,"noting that he developedlesser-
quality horsesin Russiato competeat the top levels of internationalshowjumping.
The petitioner also submitted a letter from the which details his ranks and
rolesduringhis military servicebetween1987and2008. Duringthistime,his rolesincludedInstructorof the
andsubsequentappointmentsto therolesof
The director did not requestadditional evidencepertaining specifically to this issue,and the majority of the
evidencesubmittedin responseto the RFEwasfocusedprimarily on thebeneficiary'scompetitivesuccesses
asa leadingrider with theRussianmilitary equestrianteam,
On appeal,counselasserts:
The trainerrole at [the petitioner's]farmentailsmorethanthe meretrainingof horsesit
involvescompetingthe horsesin athleticjumpingcompetitions.[Thepetitioner]presently
competesits horsesin a nationalprogramcalled (referencing
the young ageof the horses).Only the best showjumper prospectscompete in this program
with a totalof 60to 240horsesin eachagegroupfor 2010.. . . Tocompetein theseclasses,
[the petitioner| must retain a trainer who can competeathletically in these types of
competitionsandtraintheseelitehorsesto qualify,prominentlyplaceandthensubstantially
Paec 15
increasethe value of eachanimal. Therefore,theseathletic competitionsare a direct duty of
the trainer at [the petitionerl and such athletic performances must be conducted at the
extraordinarylevel - which requirean individual who hascompetedand will continueto
competetoachieveexcellenceinthefieldof endeavor.
In supportof theappeal,thepetitionersubmitsanaffidavitfrom whostatesthathe is familiar
with the beneficiarybasedon his own relationshipwith the petitioner,andan affidavit from
, whostatesthathewasthebeneficiary'steammemberandstudentonthe
team. Both statethat the beneficiary "developedtraining methodsfor young
horses that are centered on a realistic progression of horses' development, given the horses' level of
psychologicalandphysicalabilities." Theybothdescribethe beneficiaryasa "truetrainer,"aswell asa
leadingRussianriderin thefieldof showjumping.
Whilea competitiveshowjumperanda specializedhorsetrainermayshareknowledgeof thesport,thetwo
rolesalsorelyondifferentsetsof basicskills. Thus,it is notself-evidentthatcompetitiveshowjumpingand
specializedhorsetrainingshouldbe consideredthe sameareaof expertise.This interpretationhasbeen
upheldin FederalCourt. In Lee× I.N.S.,237F. Supp.2d914(N.D. Ill. 2002),thecourtstated:
It is reasonableto interpretcontmumgto work in one's"areaof extraordinaryability" as
workine in thesameprofessionin whichonehasextraordinaryability. not necessarilyin any
professionin thatfield. Forexample,Lee'sextraordinaryability asa baseballplayerdoesnot
imply that he also hasextraordinaryability in all positionsor professionsin the baseball
industrysuchasa manager,umpireor coach.
/d. at 918. Thecourtnoteda consistenthistoryin thisarea. It is thepetitioner'sburdento demonstratethat
thebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentiswithinhisareaof expertise.
Wearenotpersuadedthatacclaimasa rideris presumptiveevidencethatthedailytraining,conditioningand
care of horses is within that rider's area of expertise. However, the record does show that the beneficiary
continuedto competein showjumping at a highlevelwhile holding"trainer"positionswith theRussianarmy
teamover a period of twenty years,and that he continued to competeas recently as 2009, while testimonial
evidenceconfirmsthe beneficiary'sinherentresponsibilitiesfor developmentof young horses. Further,the
petitionerclarifies on appealthat the beneficiary'srole as a trainerwill includecompetingyounghorsesin
regionalandnationalevents.
Therefore,basedona reviewof thetotalityof theevidence,thepetitionerhasestablishedthattheproposed
employmentis in thebeneficiary'sareaof expertise.The AAO will withdrawthe director'sdecisionwith
respect to this issueonly.
Page16
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstratethatthe
beneficiaryhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof thesmallpercentagewhohas
risento thevery topof thefield of endeavor.
Here, the petitioner has submitted evidence to satisfy only two of the eight regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B),of which at leastthreemustbe met. Thus, it has failed to meetthe threshold
requirementsfor the requestedclassification. Evenif the petitionerhadsubmittedtherequisiteevidence
underat leastthreeevidentiary categories,the next stepwould be to considerall of the evidencein thecontext
of whetheror not the petitionerhasdemonstratedthatthe beneficiarypossesses:(1) a "level of expertise
indicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thelir] field of
endeavor 8C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii)and(2) "thatthealienhassustainednationalor internationalacclaimand
thathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."Seesection10l(a)(15)(O)(i)of
theAct. 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i)and8 C.F.R.§ 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii).
Wherethepetitionerfailsto satisfytheminimalevidentiaryrequirementsfor theclassification,theAAO will
not makea final determinationof eligibility basedon a reviewof thetotality of theevidence.Whilethe
recordshowsthatthebeneficiaryis a talentedandaccomplishedcompetitiveriderandtrainer,thepetitioner
cannotestablishhis eligibility for this classificationwithout submittingevidenceto meetthe regulatory
requirementsset forth at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)or (B). Thus,the AAO mustconcludethatthe
evidenceisnotindicativeof alevelof expertiseconsistentwiththesmallpercentageattheverytopof thefieldor
sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednotexplainthatconclusionoraddresstheevidencein
theaggregate
Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuantto section10l(a)(15)(O)of theAct andthepetitionmaynot
beapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct,
8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.Accordingly,theappealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
TheAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3dat 145.In
anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictionto conducta final meritsdeterminationastheoffice
thatmadethelastdecisioninthismatter.8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(1)oftheAct;section
204(b)of theAct;DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarchI, 2003);8 C.F.R.§2.1(2003);8 C.F.R.
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);Matter of Aurelio, 19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthat legacyINS, now
USCIS, is the soleauthority with thejurisdiction to decidevisa petitions).