dismissed O-1A Case: Gymnastics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-USA 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. I9, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a gymnastics center, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a gymnastics 
coach. To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, available to foreign 
nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ IIOI(a)(l5)(0)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not satisfy, as required, the alternative evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary 
ability in athletics, either a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible 
forms of documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 2I4.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
On appeal, the Petitioner avers that the Director did not properly consider the record, including 
comparable evidence of the Beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to the "comparable evidence" provision. 
8 C.F.R. § 2I4.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). It maintains that the evidence satisfies the regulatory requirements and 
thus the Beneficiary is eligible for 0-1 classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section I 0 I (a)( I5)(0)(i) of the Act establishes 0-I classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that 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. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define 
"extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "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." 8 C.F.R. § 2I4.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either of 
.
Matter ofG-USA 
"a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). And if the petitioner demonstrates that 
the listed criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable 
evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(iii)( C). If a petitioner provides the requisite 
evidence, we then determine whether the record, viewed in its totality, shows sustained national or 
international acclaim such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
Absent evidence of a Nobel-like, major international award, the Petitioner seeks to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's sustained acclaim and recognition of achievements through evidence corresponding to . 
the eight regulatory criteria. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the 
evidentiary criteria described at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). The Petitioner maintains that the exhibits 
satisfy six of those criteria. It also avers that it submitted comparable evidence of the Beneficiary's 
eligibility. 8 C.F.R § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(C). As discussed below, we find that the exhibits do not satisfy 
any of the evidentiary categories described 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). 
Documentation of the alien ·s receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field o.f endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(iii)(B)(J). 
The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon awards he received 
as a coach of junior gymnasts competing in national and international events. The Beneficiary's 
resume indicates that since 2006 he has worked for the 
as coach of its ' 
from the as an ' 
'in 2013. 
' He also provided copies of certificates he received 
in 2012 and 20.15, and" 
Although not addressed by the Director, we note that, for the translations of the above-referenced 
foreign language awards certificates, the Petitioner submitted only an unsigned blanket certification for 
"these documents." Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English 
language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language 
translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English. !d. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English 
language translation of the awards certificates, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the 
translated material is accurate and supportive of the Petitioner's claims. Regardless, for the reasons 
that follow, the evidence is nevertheless insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary received 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
1 While not at issue here, there are other evidentiary requirements for 0 foreign nationals, including documentation 
relating to the terms of the proposed employment and the nature of the activities and events in which the beneficiary will 
participate. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii). 
2 
.
Matter of G-USA 
In this case, the Petitioner does not offer information regarding the certificates to demonstrate that 
they are "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards." Without documentary evidence 
regarding the awards themselves, such as the pool of individuals considered, the selection criteria, or 
the level of attention they attract within the field, we cannot conclude that they are recognized 
beyond the issuing entity. The burden is on the Petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition 
and achievement associated with the Beneficiary's awards. Here, however, the evidence does not 
demonstrate the certificates represent receipt of nationally or internationally recognized honors. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class(fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members. as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields·. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion with his participation as a coach 
in junior gymnastic competitions at the "local, national, and international level" and for the national 
team of Peru. It avers that "it is because of [the Beneficiary's] expertise that he has participated in 
each event" and "[i)t is implied that participation [at] each event requires the outstanding 
achievements ... as recognized by national or international experts." We determine, however, that 
the evidence provided is insufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
While an athletic team is not strictly speaking an "association," it is nonetheless equally true that an 
athlete or coach can earn a place on a national or an Olympic team only through rigorous competition 
which separates the very best from the great majority of participants in a given sport. Therefore, an 
athlete's or coach's membership on an Olympic team or a major national team such as a World Cup 
team may serve to meet this criterion, as such teams are limited in the number of members and have a 
rigorous selection process. However, it is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
meets every element of a· given criterion, including that he is a member or coach of a team that 
requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. 
The Petitioner provided certifications from the indicating that the Beneficiary served as coach 
at many international artistic gymnastics competitions, including the 2015 
the 2015 the 2015 
the 2015 and the 
2014 We note that these foreign language documents do not comport with 
the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3 ), as they are accompanied by uncertified translations. Thus, 
for the reasons previously discussed, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated 
material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claims. 
While not explicitly submitted under this criterion, the exhibits include two letters and a resolution 
from the president of the confirming that the Beneficiary 
coached the men's arti~tic gymnastics team at the 2015 the 
3 
.
Matter of G-USA 
2015 and the 2013 The Petitioner 
also provided several foreign press releases that mention the Beneficiary as a coach for these 
competitions. 
Although the evidence provided indicates the Beneficiary coached at events named above, it does not 
include information identifying the qualifications required for this role. The Petitioner does not otTer a 
rationale for considering participation in such events to meet the membership criterion, beyond the 
urging that "it is implied" that outstanding achievements were required of coaches at the cited events. 
It did not submit details regarding the exclusivity of the teams or their process for choosing a coach. 
As previously mentioned, the Beneficiary's CV indicates that since 2006 he has worked for the 
as coach of the · Without more, however, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the Beneficiary's selection to coach athletes who compete on behalf of that team was due to a 
determination of his outstanding achievements, as judged by national or international experts in the 
field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about 
the alien. relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought, 
which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted foreign-language press releases published on the 
webpages of the and 
The press releases describe the',Beneficiary's work as coach of the men's 
artistic gymnastics team in preparing for the 20 15 
andthe 2015 
To qualifY as major media, a publication should have significant national or international distribution. 
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? In 
this case, the Petitioner did not present information regarding the general online readership of the 
websites on which these press releases appeared, or other evidence showing that they constitute 
professional or major trade publications or major media. 
In addition, the documentation provided does not meet other specific requirements of the criterion. 
First, most of the materials do not include authors. In addition, the Petitioner did not submit copies 
of the original foreign-language articles, accompanied by the required translations. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The provided versions of the articles obtained from Google Translator do 
not meet the regulatory requirements for translations. !d. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied this 
criterion. 
2 
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. 
4 
.
Matter ofG-USA 
Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as ajudge qf'the work of 
others in the same or in an alliedfield of specialization to thatfhr which class(jication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
The Petitioner avers that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon his participation in two 
physical education and gymnastics conferences. It does not, however, offer rationale for a 
finding that the Beneficiary's role in attending or presenting ,at those events equates to 
participating "as a judge of the work of others." As such, the evidence submitted does not 
satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scienf!fic, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
qfmajor sign(ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
In support of this criterion the Petitioner submitted recommendation letters from one 
of its coaches, and a coach with the artistic gymnastics team. Although 
the letters praise the Beneficiary's work as a gymnastics coach, they do not identify particular 
contributions of major significance in the field. In addition, letter contains multiple 
sentences identical to those contained in the Petitioner's support letter, suggesting that its language 
was not written independently. While it is acknowledged that has provided his support 
for this petition, it is unclear whether the letter reflects his independent observations and thus an 
informed and unbiased opinion of the Petitioner's work. In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Similarly, the letter from is unsigned and does not 
appear on letterhead. It therefore has limited probative value. 
The Petitioner also provided foreign language originals and translations of letters from the parents of 
two junior gymnasts coached by the Beneficiary: and 
We note that the submitted translations of those letters do not comport with the regulation at 8 
C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3 ), since they are accompanied by uncertified translations. Thus, for the reasons 
previously discussed, the English translations of those letters do not meet the regulatory requirement 
under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) and have diminished probative value. 
Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary has made an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. The letter pertaining to credits 
the Beneficiary's coaching with helping him become the national junior men's artistic gymnastics 
champion. The letter regarding indicates that he "has been of 
several Competitions in which he has participated." The above-referenced resolution from 
indicates that both gymnasts were selected to compete as members of the 
men's artistic gymnastics team in the 2013 which the 
Beneficiary coached. The Petitioner has not, however, sufficiently corroborated elsewhere in the 
record that these students received awards while under the Beneficiary's primary tutelage. More 
importantly, the letters do not explain how their success at the junior level constitutes a contribution 
5 
.
Matter of G-USA 
of major significance in the field as a whole. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity fiJr 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
The scope of this evidentiary criterion focuses on the relative importance of the Beneficiary's 
position within the scope of the organizations that have employed him. The Petitioner maintains that 
the Beneficiary was employed in a critical or essential capacity as coach of the men's 
artistjc gymnastics team. It also references his representation of In support of this criterion, 
it submitted the above-referenced press releases and the letters and resolution. 
The record does not establish, however, that the Beneficiary has been employed in a critical or 
essential capacity for these organizations. The Petitioner did not provide organizational charts or 
other documentation showing where the Beneficiary's position fell within the organizations' general 
hierarchy, such as evidence of how it related to other coaching positions in the organizations, the 
number of coaches employed, or how many of them coached top-level athletes. It did not submit 
material explaining the importance of the Beneficiary to the organizations. Without more, we cannot 
conclude that the Beneficiary played a critical or essential role. As a result, the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient material to meet this criterion. 
Comparable evidence. 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
As stated previously, DHS regulations provide that comparable evidence may be submitted if the listed 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) do not readily apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). A petitioner relying upon comparable evidence must still establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility by satisfying at least three separate ev~dentiary criteria as required under the 
regulations. Moreover, an inability to meet a regulatory criterion is not necessarily evidence that it 
does not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. It is the petitioner's burden to explain why the 
regulatory criterion is not readily applicable to the beneficiary's occupation and how the evidence 
submitted is "comparable" to that criterion. 3 On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director erred in 
not considering as comparable evidence a photograph "showing that [the Beneficiary] met with and 
posed with the because of his work as a for the ,, 
First, the Petitioner has not explained why the listed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) are not 
readily applicable to gymnastics coaching. Although the evidence submitted does not satisfy the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (7), as previously stated, an inability 
to meet a criterion does not demonstrate that it is not readily applicable to a beneficiary's 
occupation. In addition, although the Petitioner did not claim any additional criteria, we find it 
3 
The burden of proof is on the party seeking the benefit. Section 291 of the Act. 
.
Maller ofG-USA 
reasonable to believe that a gymnastics coach could, for example, satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6) (authorship of scholarly articles in the field), or 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 8) (command of a high salary). 
Next, the Petitioner does not claim that the above-referenced photograph is directly related to any of the 
eligibility criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). Rather, it references the photograph as pertaining 
to the Beneficiary ' s role as coach of the men's artistic gymnastics team, which we have 
previously discussed under the eligibility criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) and (7). For 
these reasons, the Petitioner has not met the requirements for using comparable evidence of those 
listed criteria. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not satisfy at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria or the comparable evidence 
provision. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) , (C). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary is eligible for the 0-1 visa classification as a foreign national with extraordinary ability in 
athletics. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fG-USA, ID# 226052 (AAO Apr. 19, 2017)