dismissed O-1A Case: Gymnastics

DATE: OCT 0 2 2012 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 10 1 (a)(I 5)(0) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(0). 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please lind 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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner subsequently 
filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO granted the motion and affirmed its 
previous decision. The matter is now before the AAO on a second motion to reopen. The AAO will 
dismiss the motion. 
The petitioner, a gymnastics instruction center, filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary 
as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101 (a)(l 5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(l5)(0)(i), as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner 
seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of Gymnastics Trainer/Coach for a period of two 
years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
has received "sustained national or international acclaim" or to demonstrate that he is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field as a gymnastics coach. On April 5, 2011, 
the AAO dismissed the petitioner's subsequent appeal. The AAO emphasized that the majority of 
the evidence in the record related to the beneticiary's career as a competitive athlete and circus 
performer, rather than to his achievements and national or international recognition as a gymnastics 
coach or trainer. 
The petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which addressed 
specific evidentiary deficiencies that were raised in the AAO's decision and submitted additional 
evidence pertaining to the evidentiary criteria at S C.F.R. §§ 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(l), (2), (4) and (7). 
The AAO found that although the petitioner indicated that it was seeking to file a motion to reconsider, 
the petitioner olTered new evidence for the AAO's consideration and did not claim that the AAO's 
adverse decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 
Accordingly, the motion did not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). In addition, the AAO found that the petitioner's motion to reopen failed to state any new 
facts and was not supported by affidavits or other evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary had 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field of gymnastics coaching. A 
review of the documentation submitted in support of the petitioner's motion to reopen revealed no fact 
that could be considered "new" pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(2). Therefore, the 
AAO granted the mohon and affinned its prior decision. 
The petitioner riled the instant motion to reopen, stating that new information has become available 
regarding the petition. Specifically, counsel asserts that a letter has been requested, but not yet 
received, that will "address the three necessary requirements to illustrate that the beneficiary 
qualifies for the 0-1 visa status." Counsel stated some of the information that he anticipated the 
letter would contain. However, the AAO notes that the unsupported statements of counsel on appeal 
or in a motion are not evioence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. 
Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Maller a/Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 l&N Dec. 503 (BIA 
1980). Counsel stated the new infOimation wouid be forwarded within 20 days of filing the instant 
motion. Counsel has not iorwardeci any affidavits or other documentary evidence in support of the 
motion to reopen. 
Page 3 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proven in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by atIidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In addition, in order to properly file a motion, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) requires 
that the motion must be "[a ]ccompanied 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. 
§ 103.5(a)(4) requires that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed. In this instance, the petitioner failed to submit a statement about whether or not 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 LO the regulation at 8 C.t'.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Even if the petitioner had filed a motion that meets the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(4), the AAO would dismiss the motion. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supponed by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(2). The petitioner's present motion has failed to state any 
new facts and is not supported by ailidavits or other evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary has 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top ofthe field of gyrnnasn~s coaching. 
The petitioner seeks to qualify the beneficiary for a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields. Review of the record does not establish that 
the beneficiary lias distinguished himself lO such an extent that he may be said to have achieved 
sustained national or mtemational acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his 
field. 
Motions for tlIe reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are 
petitions for rehearing and motions lor a new "trial on the oasis of newly discovefed evidence. INS v. 
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (l992)\c;(ing INS v. Abudu, 4&5 U.S. <;4 (198&). 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 nct met tnat burden. Accordingly, me motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
In visa petitiorl proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 29) ofL!le Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The moti'Jn to r~opef< is dismisfed, rh decision "fthe AAO dat~d April 5, 2011 
is affirmed, 3nd Ih~ Ftition rp.mair5 denied.