dismissed O-1A Case: Gymnastics

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 2 4 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT# : 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C . § IIOI(a)(l5)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case . 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision . The Form 1-2908 web page (www .uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, {j( 
~~~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Acting Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner filed this petition seeking to classify the Beneficiary as an 0~ 1 nonimmigrant 
pursuant to section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as a foreign national of extraordinary ability in athletics. The Petitioner, a 
gymnastics club, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a gymnastics coach for a period of three years. 
After issuing a request for evidence (RFE) and then considering the evidence of record, the Acting 
Director denied the petition. The Acting Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary has received "sustained national or international acclaim" in her field of 
endeavor. Specifically, the Acting Director determined that the evidence submitted did not satisfy 
the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or at least three ofthe eight criteria set fm1h 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The Acting Director also determined that the Beneficiary had 
violated her B-2 status by engaging in unauthorized employment and denied the Petitioner's 
request to change and extend the Beneficiary's status . The Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal 
requesting approval of the petition and submits a brief and additional evidence. 
The issue of whether the Beneficiary violated her B-2 status lies outside our appellate jurisdiction. 
An application for extension is concurrent with, but separate from, the nonimmigrant petition. 
There is no appeal from the denial of an application for extension of stay filed on Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. 8 C.F.R. § 214.1 (c)(5) . Because the Beneficiary's 
maintenance of status is an extension issue, rather than a petition issue, we lack authority to decide 
this question. With respect to the Beneficiary's eligibility as a gymnastics coach of extraordinary 
ability, for the reasons discussed below, the record supports the Acting Director's findings. 
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 regulation at 8 C.F.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." 
On appeal, the Petitioner requests that we take into consideration the shortage of gymnastics 
coaches in the United States and submits letters attesting to that shortage. The shortage of 
qualified workers in the Beneficiary's field, however, is not a consideration for the benefit sought 
under the statutory and regulatory framework for the 0-1 visa classification, which, in athletes, 
requires specific initial evidence that ultimately demonstrates sustained national or international 
acclaim . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a Petitioner can 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the Beneficiary's 
achievements in the field through evidence of a major internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). If the Petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit 
sufficient qualifying evidence that satisfies at least three of the eight categories of evidence listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). If the Petitioner demonstrates that certain criteria in 
paragraph (o)(3)(iii)(B) 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In addition, we 
have held that, "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
Acting Director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The record consists of: the Form I-129 petition and supporting evidence; the Acting Director's 
request for evidence (RFE) dated January 28, 2014, and the Petitioner's response; and, the Acting 
Director's decision dated May 19, 2014. We have reviewed the evidence of record in its entirety in 
reaching our decision. 
The record indicates that the Beneficiary competed as a gymnast from 2003 to 2005, winning 
several national/international youth championships. The Petitioner seeks to classify the 
Beneficiary as a foreign national with extraordinary ability as a gymnastics coach so that she may 
accept employment at the Petitioner's club. According to the Beneficiary's employment contract 
with the Petitioner, which the Beneficiary signed on December 2, 2013, the Beneficiary's duties in 
the United States will be to "[p )rovide supervision on the gymnastics floor, provide assistance and 
spotting. Duties will be specified by the gym floor director." The Acting Director denied the 
petition on May 19, 2014, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has 
satisfied at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
While a competitive gymnast and a coach share knowledge of the sport of gymnastics, the two rely 
on different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive gymnastics and gymnastics 
coaching/instruction are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in 
Federal Court. In Lee v. INS, 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
all positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or 
coach. 
!d. at 918. 
The statute requires that the Beneficiary seek entry into the United States "to continue work in the 
area of extraordinary ability." Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
(2007). United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will not assume that an alien 
with extraordinary ability as an athlete has the same level of expertise as a coach or instructor of 
his or her sport. However, given the nexus between athletic competition and coaching or sp011s 
instruction, in a case where the Beneficiary has achieved recent national or international acclaim as 
an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at a national or international level, 
an adjudicator may consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of 
sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that it can be concluded that coaching is within 
the Beneficiary's area of expertise. Specifically, in such a case, USCIS will consider the level at 
which the Beneficiary acts as a coach. A Beneficiary who has served as the primary coach for 
athletes competing at the national level has a stronger 
claim than a coach of novices. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary rose to the top of her field as a gymnast and 
has success as a coach. The Beneficiary has experience as a competitive gymnast, winning several 
youth national and international competitions from 2003 to 2005. The Beneficiary's athletic 
accomplishments, however, are not recent; she has been coaching for several years on an informal 
or voluntary basis. While the Beneficiary 's competitive accomplishments have probative value 
and will be given some consideration , ultimately she must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii) through her achievements as a coach. For the reasons discussed below, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is one of the small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of her field of endeavor. 
A. Consideration of the Evidentiary Criteria 1 
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. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), 
then it will have submitted the requisite initial evidence pertaining to the Beneficiary's acclaim and 
recognition. The regulations cite to the Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. Id. Here, the 
Petitioner has not submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally 
recognized award; nor has the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Therefore, 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). 
After careful review of the record and for the reasons discussed herein, the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility under three of the eight evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to satisfy or submit evidence relating to the reg ulator y categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or mvardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor 
The Acting Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfies 
this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that there are a limited number of gymnasts and 
only a few of them have won awards "at any level." At issue, however, according to the plain 
language of the regulation, is whether the Beneficiary won nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence. While age restrictions do not necessarily preclude a competition 
from qualifying under this criterion, it is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that any prize or 
award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
The Petitioner documented that the Beneficiary received the following awards: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Without documentary evidence regarding the actual competitions themselves, such as the level of 
those who participated, evidence of the selection criteria, and evidence of the distribution or 
circulation of the media that reported the results, the Petitioner has not established, based on the 
name of the competitions alone , that the results are recognized beyond the awarding entities as 
national or international awards. A competition may be open to individuals 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. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purpos.es of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter ofTreasure Craji ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "began her career with many 
competitions and awards on the [Romanian] team and began her move up to the 
team by competing in the . There 
she took second place at the individual all-around competition and medaled in every single event .... 
She helped the Romanian team take at these international games." The Petitioner 
submitted a letter from Professor Coach, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Romania, stating that she selected and trained the Beneficiary for six years and describing the 
Beneficiary as "multiple national and champion." Technical Director with 
the de Gimnastica, 
certifies that the Beneficiary was a member of the 
team from 2004 through 2008 and the team from 2009 through 2010. He continues 
that "as a she had good results in national and international competitions" including "[g]old 
medal[s] by teams, beam and vault at the ' The record does not contain, however, 
primary evidence (copies of the awards) of any such awards received by the Beneficiary, or 
secondary evidence such as media coverage. A Petitioner may only rely upon affidavits after 
demonstrating that primary and secondary evidence is unavailable. 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(2). 
Upon review, the record does not contain sufficient corroboration of the Beneficiary's receipt of any 
awards or prizes in 2006 as a member of the Romanian Team. Regardless, the 
Petitioner did not provide any evidence that the awards at the are 
nationally or internationally recognized, such as media coverage of the results in significant media. 
Further, awards the Beneficiary received as a competitive athlete do not establish her eligibility for 
this criterion as a gymnastics coach. The Petitioner also asse1is that the Beneficiary, as a 
gymnastics coach, has achieved national and international success prior to her entry to the United 
States. The Petitioner has not submitted copies of awards and evidence of rankings for athletes 
coached by the Beneficiary. Even if the Petitioner had done so, the regulation requires evidence of 
"the alien's receipt" of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor. The record contains no evidence that the Beneficiary has received a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence as a gymnastics teacher or coach. 
The next issue is whether the achievements of the Beneficiary's students should be considered 
under this criterion as comparable evidence of the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability, pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(C). First, the Petitioner must demonstrate that this criterion is not readily 
applicable to the Beneficiary's occupation. The Petitioner has not asserted or documented that there 
are no awards for gymnastics coaches. Even assuming this criterion is not readily applicable to the 
occupation of gymnastics coach, the burden is on the Petitioner to show that the evidence submitted 
as comparable is comparable to the evidence the criterion describes . Accordingly , the Petitioner can 
rely on comparable evidence if it can establish that the Beneficiary has coached athletes who have 
received nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the sport while primarily 
under the Beneficiary's tutelage. Upon review, the record contains insufficient evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary has instructed or coached athletes who have won national or 
international competitions or other nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
gymnastics excellence while primarily under the Beneficiary's tutelage. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner indicated that during the time that the Beneficiary 
volunteered for the "she coached 
and who are currently among the top ranking Gymnastics [sic] in the 
world." On appeal, the Petitioner states that "[i]nformation was submitted which [sic] a medal was 
received as a result of her coaching." However, the record does not corroborate the Petitioner's 
assertions, as advanced by counsel. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the 
assertions of counsel will not satisfy the Petitioner 's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). 
The Petitioner documented the Beneficiary's coaching experience through testimonial evidence. 
First, the record contains the previously mentioned letter from listing 
and the Beneficiary as two of the students "selected and trained" for six 
years at the While references the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of exercises "with which our little gymnasts have achieved good results," 
she does not state that or any of the school's student athletes were under the 
Beneficiary's tutelage. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from Professor President of 
stating that the Beneficiary "volunteered in our institution from September 1, 2011, to May 31 , 
2013, as a gymnastics coach in the feminine artistic gymnastics department , contributing 
substantially to the outstanding results that our association has obtained in this sport." Professor 
does not identify any student athletes under the Beneficiary 's tutelage. 
Upon review, while the Beneficiary has volunteered as a coach, working with promising young 
athletes, the evidence of record does not establish that the Beneficiary coached the gymnasts the 
petitioner identifies, such that their success is attributable to the Beneficiary's coaching. Although 
it appears that has successfully competed at the international level, there is no 
evidence that such success occurred while primruily under the Beneficiary's tutelage. The record 
does not contain sufficient evidence of the coach-athlete relationship between the Beneficiary and 
the successful athletes the petitioner lists as students the Beneficiary coached. The record is, 
therefore, lacking in documentation of the nationally or internationally-recognized achievements in 
the sport of gymnastics of individual athletes coached by the Beneficiary. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has received nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence in coaching or that she has coached athletes who 
have received such awards while primarily under her tutelage. Upon review, the submitted 
evidence does not satisfy the criterion 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, a 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 , standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations 
by colleagues or current members , or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion, as such 
requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Fmther , the overall prestige of a given 
association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIO N 
Page 8 
association 's overall reputation. The Acting Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
In response to the Acting Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's 
membership card, but did not claim that membership in the satisfies 
this criterion . The Acting Director found it was not a qualifying membership, and the Petitioner 
does not challenge that conclusion on appeal. Accordingly, that issue is not before us. See Sepulveda 
v. US Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005); Hristov v. Roark , No. 09-CV-2731, 
2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon "membership in the 
Team," which admitted the top seven female competitors overall for the year 
from 60 gymnasts at various clubs as determined by experts and 
The Petitioner elaborated as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] began her career with many competitions and awards on the 
team and began her move up to the team by competing 
~~ ~~Bw~~ 
was moved up to the Team .. . .. However, due to spinal injuries, she 
never had the chance to compete. She did, however, reach the highest possible level 
of gymnastics anyone can achieve in Romania, making it to the 
The Acting Director also concluded that the evidence relating to the team did 
not satisfy this criterion. The letter from the Beneficiary's coach, describes her as 
"multiple national and champion , part of the team, being a member of 
the letter does not specify the or 
' team of which the Beneficiary was a member, and for what period. The record 
contains several published articles pertaining to the Beneficiary, r elating to national/international 
youth gymnastics competitions she won in 2003. In one of the articles, ' 
' published in the . is quoted as stating that the 
next step for the Beneficiary are "trials for the team." The evidence of record does not 
contain the necessary evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary was 
named to the team in recognition of her multiple national/international junior 
titles. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Calffornia, 14 
I&N Dec. at 190). 
Based on the forgoing, the submitted evidence does not sufficiently document the Beneficiary's 
membership on the Team, or sufficiently document that the 
Beneficiary competed for the Team in international competitions, as the 
Petitioner asserted. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion based on her asserted appointment to team. 
Even if the Petitioner had established the Beneficiary's membership on the 
Team, in this case, "the field for which classification is sought" 1s coaching . The 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Beneficiary's membership on the Team would be based on her 
ability as a competitive athlete, not as a coach. The Beneficiary's athletic accomplishments as a 
member of that team, before she was active as a coach, cannot serve to meet this regulatory 
criterion. For all of the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material in professional or major trade publication s or major media about 
the alien, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which class(fzcation is sought; 
which shall include the title, date, and author of such publi shed material, and any 
necessary translation 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(3), it 
must be "about" the Beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major 
trade publications or major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant 
national or international distribution. In evaluating the Petitioner's evidence, the Acting Director 
noted that the Petitioner has submitted various articles regarding the Beneficiary's early work as a 
competitive gymnast. The Acting Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. Specifically , the Acting Director noted that the Petitioner had 
not documented whether "the material has a local, national or international circulation." On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts: "The Beneficiary had numerous articles written about her in the time 
that she was competing. This information was of national interest and should be considered." 
The Petitioner submitted the five published articles profiling the Beneficiary and highlighting the 
Beneficiary's national/international junior level competition results in the following publications: 
While the Petitioner has submitted -
documentation reflecting published material about the Beneficiary relating to her work as a 
competitive gymnast, the Petitioner did not establish that the material was published in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. Specifically, the Petitioner did not submit evidence 
pertaining to the audience, circulation and distribution of the publications. The Petitioner has not 
provided the necessary information about the publications to establish that the articles appear in 
qualifying media. Further, the record does not include any published materials about the Beneficiary 
referencing the Beneficiary's work as a gymnastics coach, instructor or trainer. 
Based on the forgoing, the evidence of record supports the Acting Director 's determination that the 
Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientifzc, scholarly, or business-related contributions of 
major signifzcance in thefzeld 
To meet the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), the Petitioner has submitted 
a number of testimonial letters. The Acting Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from 
Gymnastics Team. 
Head Coach and Coordinator for the 
states that the Beneficiary is a professional 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 10 
member of As discussed, the record contains the Beneficiary's membership card 
for which indicates that she is a member of the organization at the "athlete" 
level. praises the Beneficiary's technique as a gymnast, describing it as "hard to 
match." She explains that the Beneficiary "trained intensively for 12 years in the sport of 
gymnastics and that experience makes her a qualified person to be a professional gymnastics 
coach." does not state how she first became aware ofthe Beneficiary ' s activities as a 
coach or gymnast. She expresses her opinion the Beneficiary 's work under an approved petition 
"will be a great influence on young athletes in the United States" and "will serve the needs of the 
which she confirms is in need of additional gymnastics 
coaches. Moreover, being qualified to work in the proposed occupation is not, in and of itself, a 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
The record contains a letter from a gymnastics coach in Massachusetts, stating 
that the Beneficiary's "12 years of experience as an international athlete, years of intensive training 
and competitive record will make her a great asset to any gymnastics program in the United 
States." does not state how he first became aware of the Beneficiary 's activities as a 
coach or gymnast. Moreover, his confidence that the Beneficiary will be a great asset to any 
gymnastics program is not probative of her past contributions to the field of gymnastics. 
The Petitioner submitted the letter from Professor stating that the Beneficiary "volunteered 
in our institution from September 1, 2011, to May 31,2013, as a gymnastics coach in the feminine 
artistic gymnastics department, contributing substantially to the outstanding results that our 
association has obtained in this sport." Professor does not provide specific examples of 
results for athletes primarily under the Beneficiary 's tutelage at the time of those results or 
otherwise explain the Beneficiary 's impact in the field. 
The record contains the letter from the Beneficiary's coach, stating that while the 
Beneficiary was a student at the High School in , "she practiced in my 
beginners and advanced groups, proving real qualities necessary for educational-training activities 
in performance gymnastics." described the Beneficiary as having "a rich stock of 
knowledge both in rhythmic gymnastics and choreography which helped her in making of floor 
exercises and beam exercises with which our little gymnasts have achieved good results in our 
Championship ." does not provide specific examples of the 
Beneficiary 's impact in the field. Cf Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 135-36 (D.D.C. 
2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met a similarly worded criterion because 
she did not demonstrate her impact beyond her employer and clients). 
On appeal the Petitioner submits a letter from the petitioning company 's 
president and owner, explaining that the Beneficiary "volunteers her talent every day with endless 
energy and sensitivity . [The Beneficiary] also volunteers to coach our 3, 4 and 5 year old 
preschoolers with patience and warmth." also states that "my fellow American 
coaches are in great demand. There are not enough of them to fill all the openings at gyms across 
the nation." The record includes several employment ads for gymnastics coaches. This evidence 
supports the Petitioner's main focus on appeal, that there is a shortage of gymnastics coaches in the 
United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page II 
The Petitioner 's rationale for seeking to employ the Beneficiary is readily apparent, and is based 
both on an apparent shortage of qualified individuals in her field and on her talent, potential and 
successful performance as a volunteer coach. Eligibility for this criterion, unlike recruiting and 
hiring decisions, is not based on a Beneficiary 's having specific professional competencies , 
however unusual or in-demand they may be. Merely having talent or a unique skill set is not 
evidence of contributions of major significance in the field. Rather, assuming the Beneficiary 's 
skills are unique, the record must be supported by evidence that the Beneficiary has already used 
those unique skills in making a major impact on the field. does not state how the 
Beneficiary's gymnastics coaching has already made a major impact on the field, or that her 
techniques have been adopted by other gymnastics coaches or garnered widespread attention in the 
field for obtaining significant results to which other coaches aspire. 
The Petitioner also submits a joint letter from parents of student athletes of the petitioning club, 
praising "the immeasurable value [the Beneficiary] has added to the daily workouts at our gym." 
The letter states that "the higher level gymnasts learn the work ethic it takes to be a gymnast and 
are influence[ d] by her hard work and attention to details in her gymnastics" and that the 
Beneficiary "has also immensely increased the quality of the daily training of our lower level 
gymnasts." Once again, the Beneficiary's value to her local students is not, in and of itself, a 
contribution of major significance in the field. Cf Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-36. 
Upon review, the evidence of record supports the Acting Director's determination that the 
submitted evidence does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). The 
submitted letters praise the Beneficiary 's accomplishments, abilities and skills as a competitive 
gymnast and as a gymnastics coach, but none of these letters indicate that the Beneficiary has made 
original contributions of major significance to her field. 
In general, attestations regarding the Beneficiary's talent, skills and success will not satisfy 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), as evidence of the Beneficiary's original contributions. 
Competitive success is already taken into account by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), pertaining 
to prizes and awards, and 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) provides for the submission of media 
coverage of an athlete or coach. Accordingly , such evidence is only relevant insofar as it 
addresses whether the Beneficiary 's competitive success and media coverage are indicative of 
original contributions that are of major significance in the field. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary's awards recognize achievements that are either original or of 
major significance in the field such that they have impacted the field. Similarly, the media 
coverage discusses the Beneficiary's competitive accomplishments and personal history without 
suggesting that she has had an impact on the field. Finally, regarding the Beneficiary's coaching 
. experience, as noted above, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence of awards won by student 
athletes while primarily under the Beneficiary's tutelage. 
Overall, while the submitted letters are highly complimentary and suggest that the Beneficiary is a 
skilled gymnast and a capable and well-liked gymnastics coach, the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance to the spmt. Based on 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
the foregoing, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
The seventh criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that the Beneficiary has been employed in a 
critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). The Acting Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
The Petitioner submitted the previously mentioned letter from Professor President of 
stating that the Beneficiary "volunteered in our institution from September 1, 2011, to May 
31, 2013, as a gymnastics coach in the feminine artistic gymnastics department, contributing 
substantially to the outstanding results that our association has obtained in this sport." The 
Petitioner explained that during the time that the Beneficiary volunteered for "she 
coached and who are currently among the top ranking Gymnastics [sic] 
in the world." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "[i]nformation was submitted which [sic] a 
medal was received as a result of her coaching." 
The scope of this evidentiary criterion focuses on the Beneficiary and the relative importance of 
her position within the organizations that have employed her. The record does not contain 
evidence which would establish that the Beneficiary's volunteer position with the organization was 
in a critical or essential capacity, such as evidence establishing how the Beneficiary's coaching 
position related to other coaching positions in the organization, the number of coaches employed, or 
how many of the coaches took athletes to national events. As previously stated, there is no evidence 
which clearly shows the Beneficiary 's established successful history of coaching top-level athletes. 
Further, the record does not contain any evidence that has a distinguished reputation in the 
sport of gymnastics. Based on the forgoing, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
satisfies this criterion. 
B. Summary 
In this case, the evidence of record supports the Acting Director 's determination that the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, and 
that the submitted documentation does not meet three of the eight other evidentiary criteria 
specified in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) or the comparable evidence provision at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). The evidence shows that the Beneficiary is a skilled and 
experienced competitive gymnast. The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a gymnastics 
coach, which includes supervision of the Petitioner's students during the daily operation of classes. 
The record does not suggest that she will be competing. Upon review of the totality of the evidence 
submitted, for the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
has extraordinary ability as a gymnastics coach, demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim, as required by section 101(a)(15)(0) ofthe Act. Because the Petitioner has 
also not demonstrated the Beneficiary's recent eligibility as an extraordinary gymnast, we need not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
reach the question of whether the Petitioner has established that coaching is within her area of 
expertise as a gymnast. Regardless, the Petitioner has not documented the level of the gymnasts 
who are currently under the primary tutelage of the Beneficiary. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not established that the totality of the evidence of the Beneficiary's accomplishments as an athlete, 
combined with the level of coaching she has performed, is indicative of her eligibility as an 
acclaimed athlete whose area of expertise includes coaching. Consequently, the Beneficiary is not 
eligible for nonimmigrant classification under section 101(a)(l5)(0) of the Act. For this reason, 
the petition may not be approved. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner submitted no evidence that the Beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award, and the submitted documentation does not meet three of 
the eight other evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) or 
the comparable evidence provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). Consequently, the Petitioner 
has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in athletics. For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
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.