dismissed O-1A Case: Gymnastics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
FILE: WAC 08 157 50960 Office: CALIFC 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: I 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 - 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. 
Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to 
that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have 
additional information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen. The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion 
seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
v 
eny Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 08 157 50960 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant 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), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner, a gymnastics sport club, filed this petition as the beneficiary's 
representative in order to allow her to train and compete in the United States as a studentlgyrnnast for a period of 
three years. At the time of filing, the beneficiary was in the United States without status, having overstayed her 
last admission as a B-2 nonimmigrant tourist.' 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim in her field. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director erred in her 
analysis of the evidence submitted in concluding that it is "uncertain as to what, exactly, the petitioner considers 
the beneficiary's field of endeavor to be." Counsel contends that the petitioner submitted unequivocal evidence 
that the beneficiary's filed of endeavor is women's artistic gymnastics and persuasive evidence that the beneficiary 
has risen to the very top of the field. Counsel submits a detailed brief in support of the appeal. 
I. The 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 extraordinary ability 
provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S 18247 (daily ed., 
Nov. 16, 1991). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
1 As the beneficiary was out of status at the time of filing, she is ineligible for the requested change of status 
and extension of stay. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 214.1(~)(4), an extension of stay may not be approved for an 
applicant who failed to maintain the previously accorded status or where such status expired before the 
application or petition was filed. 
WAC 08 157 50960 
Page 3 
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: 
(I) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(3) Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, 
and any necessary translation; 
(4) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional journals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other 
reliable evidence. 
WAC 08 157 50960 
Page 4 
(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 mere fact that the petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the 
regulation does not necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg 41818, 
4 1820 (August 15, 1994). In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a 
two-part approach recently set forth in a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 725317 (9" Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this 
nonimmigrant classification, the regulations reviewed by the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit 
evidence pertaining to at least three out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as 
an alien with extraordinary ability. See 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, the court stated that "the proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the 
AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded). " Id at *6 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2), 
and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens 
whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for 
an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under at 
least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. 
The AAO finds the Kazarian court's two part approach applicable to evaluating the regulatory criteria set forth for 
0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability or achievement at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii), (iv) 
and (v), and to other immigrant and nonimmigrant classifications based on a similar evidentiary fi-ame~ork.~ 
For example, the Kazarian court's two-part approach would be applicable to outstanding professors and 
researchers, where the petitioner must: (1) submit evidence meeting at least two out of the six criteria outlined 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i); and (2) demonstrate that the professor or researcher is recognized internationally 
as outstanding. This approach would also be applicable to petitions for P-1 classification athletes and 
entertainment groups, where the petitioner must: (1) submit evidence meeting at least two of the seven criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(~)(4)(ii)(B)(2) or three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(~)(4)(iii)(B)(3), respectively; 
and (2) demonstrate that the individual beneficiary has achieved international recognition in his sport based 
WAC 08 157 50960 
Page 5 
Therefore, in reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO 
maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by 
using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Soltane v. DOJ, 
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted evidence that satisfies three of the evidentiary criteria, but has 
not established that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of her field or that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) and (iii). 
11. Analysis 
The record consists of a petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional evidence (RFE) and the 
petitioner's reply, the director's decision, an appeal and brief, and additional evidence supporting the appeal. The 
beneficiary in this case is a native and citizen of Peru who was 11 years and 10 months of age when the 
petition was filed. The record shows that the beneficiary competed in national and international tournaments 
as a gymnast since 2003, and has consistently won national championships in her age group in her home 
country. The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability as a gymnast. 
In denying the petition, the director acknowledged some of the beneficiary's competitive successes, but 
determined that "the opinion letters fail to clearly demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim and are [sic] one of the small percentages who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." The director also observed that the record lacks documentation in the form of reviews or articles 
about the beneficiary, and no evidence that the beneficiary has commanded or will command substantial 
remuneration. Finally, the director stated that "USCIS is uncertain as to what, exactly, the petitioner considers 
the beneficiary's field of endeavor to be." The director acknowledged "the beneficiary's wide range of 
activities" but concluded that she failed to show acclaim in any one area of endeavor. 
As a preliminary matter, the AAO emphasizes that the when denying a petition, a director has an affirmative 
duty to explain the specific reasons for the denial; this duty includes informing a petitioner why the evidence 
failed to satisfy its burden of proof pursuant to section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. See 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.3(a)(l)(i). 
Upon review of the director's one-page decision, the AAO agrees with counsel's contention that the reasons 
given for the denial are conclusory with few specific reference to the evidence entered into the record, and no 
specific references to the evidentiary criteria applicable to this visa classification. Furthermore, the director's 
contention that the petitioner failed to identify the beneficiary's field of endeavor suggests that the director 
failed to properly review the evidence submitted in support of the petition. 
on his reputation or that the entertainment group has been recognized as outstanding in the discipline for a 
sustained and substantial period of time. 
WAC 08 157 50960 
Page 6 
Due to the director's error, the AAO will review this matter without deference to the director's decision. The 
AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal from or 
review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision 
except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. US. Dept. of Trunsp., NTSB, 925 
F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AA07s de novo authority has been long recognized by the federal 
courts. See, e.g. Soltune v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
At the outset, it is critical to note that simply submitting evidence to satisfy the evidentiary criteria will not 
automatically establish eligibility for this visa classification. The mere fact that the petitioner has submitted 
evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not necessarily establish that the 
alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg. 41 81 8,41820 (August 15, 1994). 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its burden of 
proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The petitioner does not claim that the 
beneficiary qualifies for 0-1 classification on the basis of her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. 
Accordingly, 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(0)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(l), (2), (3), and (7), and submits documentation relevant to these criteria only. As such, the 
remaining four criteria will not be addressed in this decision. 
I. 8 C. F. R 9 21 4.2(0) (3) (iii) (B) (I) 
To meet criterion number one, the petitioner must submit documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
fj 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(l). The petitioner has submitted evidence that satisfies this criteria. 
The record shows that the beneficiary achieved gold medals in the Peruvian Gymnastics National Championships 
all-around and in multiple individual event finals in 2003,2004,2005, and 2006, during which time she competed 
in the 7 year-old, 8 year-old and 9-1 0 year-old age categories. The Peruvian Gymnastics Association awarded her 
the "Best of the Year Award 2003," the "Revelation Award 2004," the "Young Promise Award 2005," and the 
"Best of the Year Award 2006" based on her results. 
The beneficiary's international competition results include the following: 
= International Gymnastics Cup "Regatas Lima" 2003: Gold medals in All Around, vault, 
balance beam, floor, and team competition; silver medal in uneven bars. (7 years) 
WAC 08 157 50960 
Page 7 
International Gymnastics Cup "Stadio Italiano 2004" (Chile): Gold medal in All Around 
and floor, silver medal in balance beam, uneven bars. (8-10 years) 
"Gimnastas del Futuro" Gymnastics Championship 2005 (Havana, Cuba): Gold medal in 
All Around, vault, balance beam and floor. (9-1 0 years) 
Pan American Gymnastics Clubs Championship 2006 (Havana, Cuba): Gold medal in 
vault; silver medal in all around, balance beam, floor and uneven bars. (9- 10 years) 
South American Gymnastics Championship 2006 (Portoviejo, Ecuador): Bronze medal in 
vault, balance beam, team competition. (12 years; the beneficiary competed in this age 
group at the age of 10). 
International Gymnastics Cup "Regatas Lima" 2006: Gold medal in All Around, vault, 
uneven bars, balance beam, floor, team competition. 
2007 South American Gymnastics Championship (Maracaibo, Venezuela): Gold medal in 
all around, vault, floor exercise, team competition; silver medal on uneven bars. 
2008 International Gymnastics Championship "Aloha Gymfest" Level 10 (Oahu, Hawaii): 
4th place in all around. 
2008 Pacific Rim International Gymnastics Championship (San Jose, California): 14' place 
in All Around 
The petitioner submitted extensive documentary evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of the above-referenced 
medals and results, and explanations regarding the Peruvian and United States standards governing the 
classification of gymnasts into different age and skill categories. Counsel explained that the Federacion 
Deportiva Peruana de Gimnasia, (the Peruvian Sports Federation of Gymnastics) chose the beneficiary to 
compete in the South American Gymnastics Championship as a representative of Peru, due to her elite rank in the 
Junior/Senior Gymnastics team. The beneficiary's Peruvian national titles and medals at the South American 
Gymnastics Championships satisfy this criterion. 
2. 8 C. F. R. 8 21 4.2(0) (3) (jig (B) (2) 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(2), the 
petitioner must document 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. 
The record shows that the beneficiary is a member of the Peruvian and South American gymnastics associations 
and a member of USA Gymnastics. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that membership in such 
associations requires outstanding achievements as judged by national or international experts. Rather, 
membership in these gymnastics associations appears to be a pre-requisite to competing in meets sanctioned by 
the associations, and no specific requirements for membership have been documented. 
WAC 08 157 50960 
Page 8 
However, the petitioner has submitted a letter from fi 
who confirms that the beneficiary competes for the Peruvian JuniorISenior National Team 
in international competitions such as the South American Gymnastics Championships. confirms 
that the beneficiary was named to the national team in recognition of her multiple national titles. The AAO finds 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on her appointment to Peru's national team by the national 
governing body in her sport. 
3. 8 C. F. R. 8 214.2(0) (3) (iii) (B) (3). 
To meet the third criterion, the petitioner must submit 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. 8 
C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The petitioner submitted photocopies of newspaper articles that highlight the beneficiary's national and 
international competition results, and feature articles profiling the beneficiary, dating from 2005 to 2008. The 
beneficiary has been featured in print and on-line editions of major daily Peruvian newspapers El Comercio and 
Peru 21, in Peru Magazine, in International Gymnast magazine, and has appeared on Peruvian sports program 
"El Deportivo." The AAO finds the evidence sufficient to establish that the beneficiary has received major 
media coverage for her accomplishments at the national level in the sport of gymnastics. 
4. 8 C. F. R. 8 21 4.2(0) (3) (iji) (B) (7) 
The petitioner states for the first time on appeal that the beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(7), which requires the petitioner to submit evidence that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation. 
Specifically, counsel states that the petitioner has "evidence that the beneficiary has been employed as the top- 
ranked member of her country's national gymnastics team - a critical or essential role in an organization which 
has a distinguished reputation." 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits a letter dated May 1, 2009 from- 
at the Peruvian Consulate in San Francisco, who states: 
[The beneficiary] is considered a Qualified Athlete by the Peruvian Sports Institute (LDP), the 
Peruvian national sporting authority, and receives a monthly stipend from our government to 
support her preparation and training in order to classify for the next Olympic Games that will 
take place in London in the year 2012. In addition, she has been selected for consideration this 
year through the Peruvian Olympic Committee to receive an international scholarship from 
WAC 08 157 50960 
Page 9 
Olympic Solidarity that will allow her to train in better technical conditions and supervision than 
is available in Peru. 
The petitioner also submits a letter from the Peruvian Olympic Committee, dated February 4, 2009, addressed to 
According to the 
letter the Peruvian Olympic Committee selected the beneficiary to apply for a scholarship from the International 
Olympic Union for participation in the 201 0 Youth Olympic Games. 
Upon review, the AAO finds this evidence insufficient to establish that the beneficiary is "employed" as a 
member of the Peruvian national gymnastics team, or that any financial arrangement between the beneficiary and 
the team was in place at the time the petition was filed in May 2008. Absent additional information regarding the 
beneficiary's monthly stipend from the Peruvian govemment and evidence that the beneficiary was receiving such 
stipend prior to the filing of the petition, the petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. However, as discussed 
above, the AAO does find the beneficiary's membership on the Peruvian national gymnastics team to meet the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
In light of the foregoing, the petitioner has submitted evidence that satisfies three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Thus, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that considers 
all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) that the beneficiary has 
achieved a level of expertise indicating that she is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii); and (2) that the beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. fj 214.2(0)(3)(iii). See Kazarian, 201 0 WL 7253 17 at "3. 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of 
the sport of gymnastics. 
While the beneficiary has undoubtedly competed with great success at the national and international levels, the 
beneficiary's achievements must be compared to all gymnasts and not only to other seven- to eleven-year-olds 
competing in the sport. The beneficiary's most recent national championship gold medal was in the 9 to 10 year- 
old category. Similarly, the beneficiary's 2007 South American National Championship appears to have been in a 
competition limited to "infantile" and "juvenile" divisions, in which the beneficiary won the "infantile" category. 
In weighing the merits of the beneficiary's national and international championships, and her status as a member 
of her country's national gymnastics team, the AAO must take into account that the beneficiary has enjoyed 
success at pre-junior levels of her sport. 
WAC 08 157 50960 
Page 10 
As of the date of filing, the beneficiary's only international competition at the more advanced junior women's 
level resulted in a 14" place finish at the Pacific Rim Gymnastics Championships. a coach 
for the petitioner, noted in a letter dated April 19, 2008 that "this was [the beneficiary's] first time competing on 
the big stage with such gymnasts as current world balance beam champion13 The AAO would 
expect an athlete at the very top of his or her sport to be competing in such high-profile events at the highest 
competitive level of the sport over a period of time. The regulations require the petitioner to demonstrate 
"sustained" acclaim. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii). A single 14" place finish at the second-highest level of 
competition is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's placement in the top echelon of athletes in the sport. 
According to the avera e a e of female Olympic and world championship-level gymnastics 
competitors is between 16 and 1 8. *further states: 
The foundation of basics is usually formed between the ages of 9 and 11 years old. From the 
ages of 12-14 or 15, one can usually see the biggest increase in learning high-level, world class 
skills, while the senior age group of girls ages 16 and up works hard on polishing up those skills 
to be shown on the world stage in peak form. 
This statement further supports a conclusion that the national and international championships achieved by the 
beneficiary in competition with other 7 to 1 l-year-old athletes are not indicative of her rise to the very top of the 
sport when compared to all gymnastics athletes. Neither the beneficiary nor her competitors in these age groups 
would be considered to have achieved the highest level of expertise in the sport. also emphasizes in 
her letter that "Peru has a limited amount of girls who compete in gymnastics," and that in the beneficiary's prior 
training in Peru, "it was too easy for her to be the best." She states that the beneficiary "has the ability to be a 
great gymnast," and that competing in the United States "against so many gymnasts who are as good as her or 
even better than her has made her a better athlete." 
beneficiary's accomplishments to date "reflect the possibility of winning performances in Large-Scale Gymnastics 
meets, such as International Championships and the Olympic Games." The petitioner's coach considers the 
beneficiary to be a "rising star" in the sport. The 0-1 classification is reserved for athletes who have already 
achieved winning performances in top-level national and international competition, rather than for up-and-coming 
athletes who show great promise. 
The evidence of record does show that the beneficiary is regarded as a top youth gymnast, or even the top 
gymnast, in her home country, despite her young age and pre-junior level competition status. However, the 
testimonial evidence submitted also indicates that Peru has had limited, if any, success at the very top levels of 
The record shows that won the women's senior all-around title at the 2008 Pacific Rim 
Gymnastics Championships, while the beneficiary achieved her 14'~ place finish in the women's junior 
division. 
WAC 08 157 50960 
Page 11 
international gymnastics competition and has not, for example, competed in the sport in the Olympic games. 
Therefore, the AAO finds that the beneficiary's national recognition for her athletic achievements does not elevate 
her to the "very top" of the sport when compared to all gymnasts. 
111. Conclusion 
In review, we concur with the director's conclusion that the beneficiary is not among the small percentage of 
persons who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor. While the beneficiary's national and 
international championships in the 7 to 11 -year-old age groups are noteworthy, we will not narrow her field to 
others in her age group and competition level. Overall, the evidence of record demonstrates that the beneficiary 
will likely compete at the very highest levels of her sport in the future. However, for the reasons discussed above, 
it would be premature to deem her a top athlete in the sport at this time. 
The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others 
in her field at a national or international level. The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are 
intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is "at the very top" of her field 
of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). The beneficiary's achievements have not yet risen to this level. 
USCIS records indicate that the beneficiary has an approved P-1 visa petition (WAC 09 159 5 16 17) that was filed 
after this current petition. The denial of this petition is without prejudice to the filing of a new 0-1 petition in the 
future after the beneficiary qualifies, based on her age and ability, to compete at the highest level of the sport. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 9 136 1. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.