dismissed O-1A Case: Gymnastics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Noninnmigrant 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Date: MAR 2 3 2011 
Imrniglrati,)n and 
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 futther 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. § 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 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. 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
• 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition on October 
6, 2009. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's appeal of that decision on 
September 30, 2010. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The AAO will dismiss the 
motion. 
The petitioner, a gymnastics center, filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classifY the beneficiary as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant pursuant to section !o1(a)(IS)(O)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ II0l(a)(IS)(0)(i), as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. The beneficiary was previously granted 0-
1 status for a period of three years and the petitioner seeks to extend his status so that he many continue to serve 
in the position of head gymnastics coach for three additional years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim in his field or that he is one of the small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of gymnastics coaching. The director found that the evidence submitted failed to satisfY 
the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(3)(iii)(A) or at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8). In dismissing the petitioner's subsequent appeal, the AAO found that the petitioner 
submitted evidence satisfYing the plain language of only one of the eight criteria, at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)( 4). The AAO emphasized that the beneficiary's most notable claimed achievements as a 
gymnastics coach were poorly documented in the record. 
The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen. In order to properly file a motion, the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § I 03.S(a)( I )(iii) requires that the motion must be "[aJccompanied by a statement about whether or not 
the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the 
court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ !03.S(a)(4) requires that "[aJ motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." In this 
case, the petitioner failed to submit a statement regarding if the validity of the decision of the AAO has been 
or is subject of any judicial proceeding. As such, the motion must be dismissed pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § !03.S(a)( 4). 
On the Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel states: "See attached additional documentation to 
support approval of the petition and reversal of the denial decision. Beneficiary qualifies for 0-1 trealment and 
meets the requirements for an alien of extraordinary ability." Counsel submits a short brief in which she 
summarizes the newly submitted evidence. She asserts: 
This additional information provides evidence that [the beneficiary J meets the criteria for the 0-1 
category: (a) evidence of his participation as a judge of the work of others in the same field of 
specialization; (b) evidence of his original contributions of major significance in the field; and 
(c) evidence that he has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submits the following evidence in support of the motion to reopen: (1) the beneficiary's revised 
and updated resume; (2) newly-obtained reference letters from Olympic champion gymnasts Dmitri Bilozerchev 
Page 3 
and •••• I11III who attest to the beneficiary's coaching qualifications and achievements; (3) a letter from the 
petitioner's owner stating his need for the beneficiary's services; and (4) results from the 
artistic gymnastics. Counsel indicates that four athletes coached by the beneficiary placed 
first in their respective levels and age groups in this competition, which was held in March 2010. 
With respect to the beneficiary's updated and revised resume and gymnastics competition results from March 
2010, we emphasize that the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa 
petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
Accordingly, this evidence will not be considered. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(2). Based on the plain meaning of "new," a new fact is found to be 
evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding. I 
A review of the evidence that the petitioner submits on motion reveals no fact that could be considered "new" 
under 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(2). In addition, the petitioner failed to explain why the evidence was previously 
unavailable and could not have been submitted earlier. The petitioner has been afforded three different 
opportunities to submit evidence in support of the petition: at the time of the original filing of the petition on April 
9, 2009, in response to the director's request for additional evidence issued on August 12,2009, and at the time of 
the filing of the appeal on November 9,2009. As the evidence submitted on motion reveals no fact that could be 
considered "new" under 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(2), the petitioner has not established a proper basis for a motion to 
reopen. For this additional reason, the motion will be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.S(a)( 4). 
Regardless, the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner, even if it could be considered "new," fails to 
establish that the beneficiary meets any additional regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). As 
noted above, the AAO previously determined that the petitioner submitted evidence to meet the plain language of 
the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)( 4), relating to judging the work of others in the same field 
of specialization to that for which the classification is sought. 
The petitioner claims that the newly submitted evidence documents the beneficiary'S "original contributions of 
major significance in the field" pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(5). This claim appears to be based on 
Mr. Bilozerchev's letter, in which he states that the beneficiary used "new methodical techniques" in his coaching 
and "approached the training process creatively and introduced new and interesting ways to training [sic] 
gymnasts.1! 
In evaluating this criterion, the AAO noted that the petitioner's evidence submitted prior to the adjudication of the 
petition failed to specifY exactly what the beneficiary'S original contributions to the sport of gynmastics have 
been, and failed to explain how any such contributions were of major significance in the field. As we emphasized 
I The word "new" is defined as "1. having existed or been made for only a short time ... 3. Just discovered, 
found, or learned <new evidence> .... " Webster's II New College Dictionary 736 (2001)(emphasis in original). 
Page 4 
in our previous decision, an alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory 
criterion. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( 0)(3)(iii)(B)(5), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the 
beneficiary's influence on other coaches nationally or . does it show the field has 
specifically changed as a result of his work. The letter from if it could be considered to 
provide "new facts" that were not previously available, would not be to satisfy the plain language of 
this regulatory criterion. His statement fails to explain how the beneficiary's "new and interesting" training 
methods impacted the sport of gymnastics. 
The petitioner claims the evidence submitted on motion further establishes that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations that have a distinguished reputation, pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(7) . 
•••••• .." states that the beneficiary served as head coach of the ~ational gymnastics team 
between 1999 and 2003. _ states that the beneficiary "was the head trainer for 
~team from 1996 to 1999 and was the 
from 1999 through 2003." _urther notes that the beneficiary trained athletes at 
noting that this is "one of the premier training facilities in the world." 
The AAO discussed the deficiencies of the petitioner's evidence with respect to this criterion at length in its 
decision dated September 30, 2010. The petitioner did not originally claim that the beneficiary had ever served as 
a coach for a national or Olympic team. The petitioner' 
part, on the beneficiary's claimed role as Vice President of 
•••••• but submitted inadequate explanation or documentary evidence in support of 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner claimed for the first time that the beneficiary was employed as head trainer 
for the • & Olympic Team trom 1996 to 1999 and as Superior Trainer of the Republican National 
Combined Team from 1999 to 2003. The petitioner had submitted an uncertified English translation of a 
Russian·language document purported to provide official confirmation of these roles. The AAO noted that the 
document accompanying this translation appeared to be the diploma rather than a 
certification trom any gymnastics or sports authority in the We found no Russian· 
language document that corresponded with the uncertified English translation and therefore found that the 
petitioner's claims regarding the beneficiary's claimed Olympic and national team coaching experience remained 
uncorroborated. The AAO further emphasized that the beneficiary's resume submitted at the time of filing failed 
to mention this elite· level coaching experience. 
The petitioner now submits the above-referenced testimonial letters and the beneficiary's revised resume. These 
documents, even if they could be considered "new" evidence, are insufficient to overcome the deficiencies noted 
above. The record still contains no primary evidence of the beneficiary's experience as the coach of a national or 
Olympic gymnastics team, such as an original, Russian-language letter or certificate from the governing body of 
Page 5 
the sport cOllfirmillg the beneficiary's positions and dates of employment, accompanied by a 
certified English translation. 
While ~ and _ both mention the beneficiary's experience as coach of 
neither individual states with any specificity the basis of their knowledge of the 
minute details of the beneficiary's career. Neither individual indicates that they know the beneficiary, or that 
they knew him during his claimed tenure as a coach. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iii)(B) 
provides, in pertinent part, that affidavits written by recognized experts attesting to the recognition and 
extraordinary ability shall set forth the manner in which the affiant acquired his or her information. 
Therefore, even if the letters could be considered to present "new facts" as contemplated by the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), the evidence would be insufficient to overcome the deficiencies discussed in detail in 
the AAO's prior decision with respect to this evidentiary criterion. 
Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for 
rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 
323 (l992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy 
burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
Accordingly, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U .S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the 
proceedings will not be reopened, and the AAO's previous decision will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.