dismissed O-1A Case: Gymnastics

(b)(6)
Date: SEP 1 3 2013 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department ofHomelalld Security 
U.S. Citizen ship and Immigration Service; 
Office of 
Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www .uscis.gov/fonns for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Than 
Ron Rosenbe 
Chief, 
Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6) Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, a children's gymnastics school, filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i), of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary in the position of coach of rhythmic gymnastics for a period of three 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 she is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of her field as a gymnastics coach. 
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, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has extraordinary ability 
in the field of rhythmic gymnastics, and that the beneficiary is an outstanding coach in this field. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits new evidence as well as copies of previously submitted evidence. 
I. TheLaw 
Section 101(a)(l5)(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. S18247 (daily ed., 
Nov. 16, 1991). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(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.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
Non-Precedent Decision 
(J) 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, m 
professional journals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
( 8) Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other 
reliable evidence. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
(b)(6)
Page4 
Non-Precedent Decision 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certifying to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. 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 at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach set forth 
in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 
(9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 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. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the Kazarian 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)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
The court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of 
the evidence submitted to meet two of the criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a 
subsequent "fmal merits determination." Id at 1121-22. 
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. While involving a different 
classification than the one at issue in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's 
reasoning persuasive to the classification sought in this matter. 
The AAO finds the Kazarian court's two-part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set 
forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). 
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 this matter, the AAO has reviewed the evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion 
claimed. As the petitioner has failed to submit evidence that satisfies three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B), the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of 
three types of evidence. 
(b)(6) Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 5 
II. Discussion 
A. Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability in the United States 
This petition, filed on October 26, 2012, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability 
in athletics, through her achievements as a coach of rhythmic gymnastics. The statute and regulations require 
that the beneficiary seek to continue work in her area of extraordinary ability in the United States. See section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(i). The record is clear that 
the beneficiary intends to continue to work in the area of gymnastics coaching in the United States and not as 
a competitive athlete or performer. 
The record includes evidence showing that the beneficiary competed successfully in national and international 
gymnastics competitions in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012, that the beneficiary was a member of the 
national team of and that she was a coach in the area of children's calisthenics. While a competitive 
gymnast and a coach may share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. 
Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been 
upheld in Federal Court. In Lee v. l.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as working 
in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any profession 
in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not imply that he 
also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a 
manager, umpire or coach. 
!d. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. While the record demonstrates that the beneficiary 
intends to continue working as a gymnastics coach, there is no evidence indicating that she intends to compete 
as a gymnast in the United States. We acknowledge the possibility of an alien's extraordinary claim in more 
than one field, such as a gymnastics coach and a competitive gymnast, but the 0-1 petition must be 
accompanied by evidence that the work which the alien is coming to the United States to continue is in the area 
of extraordinary ability. In this case, there is no evidence establishing that the beneficiary intends to continue 
working in the United States as a competitive gymnast. Although the beneficiary's competitive 
accomplishments as a gymnast are not completely irrelevant and will be given consideration, ultimately she 
must satisfy the statutory requirement at section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act as well as the regulations at 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) through her achievements as a coach. 
USCIS recognizes that there exists a nexus between playing and coaching a given sport. To assume that every 
extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, however, would be too speculative. To resolve this 
issue, a balanced approach is appropriate when reviewing the evidence in the aggregate in the final merits 
determination. Specifically, in a case where an alien has achieved recent national or international 'acclaim as 
an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at a national level, we can consider the 
totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such 
that we can conclude that coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. A coach who has an 
(b)(6) Non-Prec edent Decision 
Page6 
established successful history of coaching athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible 
claim; a coach of novices does not. 
B. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary 
satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), or at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
The beneficiary, a gymnast who has also coached gymnastics, is a native and citizen of The 
petitioner, self-described as children's school of gymnastics, filed the instant petition on October 26, 2012, 
seeking to employ the beneficiary as a gymnastics coach. The director subsequently issued a request for 
additional evidence ("RFE"), to which the petitioner responded . 
At the outset, it must be noted that Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by 
requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international 
acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the 
Act. If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has been 
the recipient of a major internationally recognized award in the particular field pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 
classification. The regulation lists the Nobel Award as an example of a qualifying significant award or prize. 
Other examples of major, internationally recognized awards may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, 
and most relevant for athletics, an Olympic Medal. 
The petitioner claimed that that the evidence establishes the beneficiary has met the criterion set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A).1 The petitioner submitted copies of the beneficiary's awards and 
diplomas. The beneficiary's first , second and third place finishes are listed below: 2 
1. 200 place for 
2010; 
2. 3rd place for 
2010: 
3. 3rct place for 
2010; 
1 The AAO will withdraw the director's comment that the petitioner did not claim eligibility under this 
criterion. In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner indicated that it was submitting evidence under this 
criterion. 
2 The beneficiary's fourth place and lower finishes (and finishes not specifically designated) have been 
omitted from the awards provided by the petitioner, as the petitioner has not established that placing in these 
positions resulted in the receipt of an "award or prize for excellence in the field" as required by the plain 
language of the regulations. 
(b)(6) Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 7 
4. 3rd place for 
2010; 
5. 3rd place for 
2010; 
6. 2nd place for 2007; 
7. 1st place for 
, 2011; 
8. 1st place for 
2011; 
9. 1st place for 
, 2011; 
10. 1 sr place for ... 
2011; 
11. 1st place for 
'2011; 
12. 1st place in the 
2010; 
13. 2"d place in 
2007; 
14. 2"
0 
place in 1 
2007; 
15. 2no place in 
2007; 
16. 2nd place in 
2007; 
17. 2nd place in 
' 2007; 
18. ls
1
placein 
(date un-translated); 
19. 3rd place in 
2008; 
20. 2nd place in 
'2012; 
21. 2
110 
place in 
(date un-translated); 
22. 1 sr place in 
, 2008; 
23. 1st place in 
, 2012; 
24. 2nd place in 1 
(date un-translated); 
(b)(6) Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 8 
25. 3rct place in 
2008; 
26. 3rct place in 
2008; 
27. 3rct place in 
'2008; 
28. 3rct place in 
2006. 
The oetitioner also submitted published articles reflecting that the beneficiary won five gold medals in l 
in the United States. 
While the evidence indicates that the beneficiary is talented and has received several awards as a gymnast, the 
petitioner submitted no evidence to establish that the above awards are internationally recognized or 
equivalent to the Nobel Prize or an Olympic Medal. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm'r 1972)). Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the 
petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary satisfies the criteria at 
8 C.P.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), (4) and (5). In addition, while the petitioner did not explicitly claim 
that the beneficiary satisfies the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) and (2), the AAO will 
analyze the petitioner's evidence under these two criteria. 3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) requires "[d]ocumentation 
of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor [emphasis added]." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for every element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate the 
beneficiary's receipt of awards and prizes, it must also demonstrate that those awards and prizes are 
nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. In other words, the petitioner must establish 
that the beneficiary's awards and prizes are recognized nationally or internationally beyond the 
awarding entities. 
3 The petitioner has not claimed to meet or submitted evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
(b)(6) Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 9 
While the pet1t10ner submitted certificates evidencing the beneficiary's receipt of the awards 
previously discussed for the criterion set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), the petitioner failed to 
submit documentation demonstrating that the awards received from these competitions are nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The AAO notes that the majority of the awards that 
the beneficiary won were in junior competition in and _ . Without documentary 
evidence regarding the actual competitions themselves, such as the level of those who participated or 
evidence of the selection criteria, we cannot conclude, based on the name of the competitions alone, 
that the competitions or tournaments are national or international, and therefore that the results are 
recognized beyond the awarding entities as national or international awards. We emphasize that a 
competition may be open to athletes from throughout a particular country or countries, but this factor 
alone is not adequate to establish that an award or prize is "nationally or internationally recognized." 
The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and achievement associated 
with the beneficiary's awards. 
In addition, and most importantly, the record contains no evidence that the beneficiary has received a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence as a rhythmic gymnastics instructor or 
coach. As the petitioner clearly seeks to employ the beneficiary as a rhythmic gymnastics coach, the "area of 
extraordinary ability" for which classification is sought is coaching. There is no evidence indicating that the 
beneficiary seeks to work in the United States as a competitive gymnast. The preceding awards all resulted from 
the beneficiary's accomplishments as a competitive gymnast, thus they cannot be considered evidence of her 
sustained national or international recognition as a coach. As previously discussed, the statute and regulations 
require that the beneficiary seeks to continue work in her area of extraordinary ability in the United States. 
See section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(i). See also Lee 
v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. There is no evidence showing that the beneficiary has received nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in coaching. 
Further, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's students have 
won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. While 
several support letters assert that the beneficiary has participated in coaching several award-winning 
students, the petitioner has not provided documentary evidence of their awards. The petitioner has 
not adequately explained why documentary evidence of such awards is not available; the third-party 
statements of witnesses regarding such awards are insufficient to meet this criterion. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec . at 165. Finally , the evidence indicates 
that the beneficiary has only been teaching gymnasts competing at the junior level. Even if the 
petitioner had submitted copies of the awards, an international award received by a student 
competing at the junior level would not carry the same evidentiary weight as an international award 
received by a competitor at the adult, professional level , without some additional explanation as to 
how the sport is governed at the junior level. 
(b)(6) Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 10 
In light of the above, the AAO withdraws this portion of the director's decision, and .finds that the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
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 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a 
given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's 
overall reputation . 
The petitioner submitted three reference letters attesting that the beneficiary was a member of the 
in rhythmic gymnastics as an active participant in major international and national 
competitions, and that due to her "good results," she was allowed to work as a coach of younger girls under 
the direction of the main coach, her mother. However, the petitioner has not adequately explained why 
documentary evidence of such membership is not available; third-party statements that the beneficiary is a 
member of the in rhythmic gymnastics are insufficient to meet this criterion. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In addition, the petitioner has failed to submit documentary evidence that this organization requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. The petitioner has not 
submitted evidence of the membership requirements for the in rhythmic gymnastics, 
showing that membership is reserved for those gymnasts who have recorded outstanding achievements in the 
field. 
Further, as indicated above, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the "alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought." In this case, the field for which 
classification is sought is rhythmic gymnastics coaching. The petitioner does not indicate that it requires the 
beneficiary's services as a competitive gymnast. As previously discussed, the statute and regulations require that 
the beneficiary seeks to continue work in her area of extraordinary ability in the United States. See section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(i). See also Lee v. I.NS., 237 F. 
Supp. 2d at 914. The petitioner has not provided evidence that the beneficiary is a member of any qualifying 
association for gymnastic coaches, or provided evidence of any separate membership 
requirements applicable to rhythmic gymnastics coaches. 
(b)(6) Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 11 
Therefore, the AAO cannot conclude that the evidence satisfies the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the alien, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought, which shall include the 
title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), it must be 
primarily "about" the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media 
because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.4 
With the initial petition, the petitioner submitted a newspaper article titled ' 
' which mentions the 
beneficiary's receipt of gold awards in skipping, rope, hoop, ball, Indian clubs, and ribbon at the 
.5 The petitioner also submitted an article reprinting art interview 
with the beneficiary titled "[The beneficiary]: .," published in 
, discussing the beneficiary's life and achievements in gymnastics competitions. On appeal, the 
petitioner submitted additional articles discussing the beneficiary's achievements as a gymnast. 
The submitted articles reflect the beneficiary's accomplishments as a gymnast rather than her accomplishments as 
a gymnastics coach. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires published material "about the 
alien . .. relating to the field for which classification is sought." We cannot conclude that the preceding material 
relates primarily to the beneficiary's work as a coach. Further, there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) 
showing that any of the above-referenced publications qualify as "major media." 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to satisfy the plain 
language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter from the stating that the 
beneficiary worked as a judge in 2011 and 2012' ." However, it 
is noted that on November 5, 2012, the director issued a Request for 
Evidence (RFE). The RFE instructed the 
petitioner to submit evidence of the applicant's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act. In 
4 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
5 The translated version did not include the name of the newspaper in which this article appeared. _ 
(b)(6) Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 12 
denying the application, the director concluded that the documents submitted in response to the RFE were not 
sufficient to establish the applicant's eligibility, and that the petitioner had failed to submit evidence to 
establish eligibility under this criterion. The purpose of the RFE is to elicit further information that clarifies 
whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the application is filed. 
See 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line 
of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the application. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(14). As in the present matter, 
where an applicant has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity 
to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See 
Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter ofOhaigbena , 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the 
applicant had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted the documents in 
response to the director's request for evidence . /d. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not, and does 
not, consider the sufficiency of this evidence submitted on appeal. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to satisfy the 
plain language requirements of 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field . 
As evidence of eligibility under this criterion, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's awards and diplomas. 
However, as stated above, the submitted awards all resulted from the beneficiary's accomplishments as a 
competitive gymnast and not as a gymnastics coach, thus they cannot be considered evidence of her contributions 
of major significance in the field of gymnastic coaching. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. 
While not ex licitly submitted under this criterion, the petitioner submitted recommendation letters from the 
, and the 
. The letter from the 
who was contacted by the 
petitioner for a consultation, asserts that the beneficiary is an "internationally respected gymnastics professional 
who will be a great asset to our program" in her capacity as a gymnastics coach at the petitioning company, 
because it will allow the beneficiary to "provide leadership and expertise." The letter states that the beneficiary's 
coaching "would greatly serve the needs of the United States Gymnastics Federation" and its efforts t6 place and 
maintain the United States in a top world ranking in gymnastics. The letter proceeds to discuss the decline in 
gymnastics teachers and coaches in the United States, and the need to develop more gymnastics professionals into 
U.S. coaches. While this letter indicates that the beneficiary will likely make a contribution to the field of 
gymnastics coaching in the future, this letter does not indicate that the beneficiary has already made contributions 
of major significance in the field of gymnastics coaching. Thus, this letter does not meet the plain language 
requirements of 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
The letter from the 
attests to the beneficiary's achievements as a gymnast, and states that due to these 
(b)(6) Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 13 
"good results," she was "allowed to work" as a coach "under the direction" of the school's main coach, the 
beneficiary's mother. The letter states: "During her work she trained the whole generation of talented 
gymnasts who where [sic] and who is [sic] in nati9naljunior and senior team of 
." The letter also states that the beneficiary "showed good 
results during working at the calisthenics school, she was attentive and serious, developed coaches [sic] 
qualities, proved to be the [sic] responsible and knowing specialist." The letter concludes: "[The beneficiary] 
always improves her professional skills as a professional coach." While this letter indicates that the 
beneficiary coached three gymnasts who are in the national junior and senior team of the letter does 
not explain how this constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. 
On appeal the petitioner submitted an additional letter 
from the 
-' stating that the beneficiary "prepared the champion of 
state among 8-9 aged girls and silver prised [sic] gymnast [sic] of state among 10-14 aged girls." Again, the 
letter does not explain how coaching students at the junior level constitutes a contribution of major 
significance in the field. On appeal the etitioner also submitted a diploma awarded to the beneficiary "for 
[her] excellent contribution to the ." The diploma does not indicate that it was given to 
the beneficiary in recognition of contributions of major significance made with respect to coaching. 
In summary, while the record contains reference letters that acknowledge the beneficiary's skills and success as a 
competitive gymnast and acknowledge that she has coached gymnastics, none of the letters indicate that the 
beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance to the field of gymnastics coaching. 
Therefore, based upon the record of proceeding before the director, the petitioner failed to submit evidence 
meeting the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
III. Conclusion 
The record indicates that the beneficiary is a talented gymnast who has also performed the duties of a coach in the 
area of children's calisthenics. However, the documentation submitted in support of the petition fails to establish 
that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for achievements in 
gymnastics coaching. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with 
the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a consideration of the evidence in the context of a final merits 
determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under any of the criteria 
found under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) and (B). The AAO will not conduct a final merits 
determination. For the above-stated reasons, the petition may not be approved. 6 
6 
The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) . In any future 
proceeding on motion or as a result of litigation, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the official who made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also 
Section 103(a)(l) of the Act; Section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 
2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec . 458, 460 
(b)(6) Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 14 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
(BIA 1987)(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).