dismissed O-1A Case: Gymnastics

(b)(6)
Date: DEC 1 2 20f3 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
i:NRE: Petitionc::t:; 
Beneficiary: 
.U.S. J)epartmentofHoineland Security 
U,S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Admin.istrativ~ Appeals Office (AAO) 
~0 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS ~090 
Washington, DC :205:?9 ~2090 
U.-S. Citizenship .. 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Pet_itjon for & Nonil!l~igrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigratio": and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S .• C. § 1101(a.)(15)(0)(i) 
ON .1,3E_HALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
. . 
Enclosed please find the decision _of the Administta .tive Appeals Qffiee (AAO) i1'l yo~t c_ase_, 
This is a non~precedent decision. The AAO doe~ not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy thtolJgh non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or _policy to 
your case or if yolJ seek tQ present new facts fot considera~jon, )'OlJ rnay fil¢ a. inotio(l to rec.onsider or a 
·. motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be flied on a Notice:: of Appeal ot Motion (Forni 1-~906) 
within 33 days ~f the date of this decision . ... Please review the Form 1-29013 Instructions at 
http:/iwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
~ .... . \ •.. ~ - ·: . - . . :- . .. .. _· . . . . . ' " ' 
. .See also 8 C.F.R, § 103.5, Do n~t file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg . 
Chief,Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page z· 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonitnmigr'ant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismi~sed. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 
l01(a)(15)(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 iJ1 athletics. The petitioner, a gymnastics .school, seeks to employ the beneficiary as 
Gymnastics Team Director and Head Coach, for a period of three years. , 
' 
The director deijied the petition, finding that the evidence submitted satisfied only one of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B), of which three are required to establish eligibility. 
The petHio~ner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal t(> the AAO. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts thl:lt the petitioner submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficil:lry qualifies for 0-1 classification pursuant to the standards set· 
forti) at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). Counsel emphasizes the beneficiary's qualifications both as a gymnastics 
coach and as a competitive gymnast. Counsel submits a brief and additional evidence in support of the 
appeal. 
I. TbeL~w 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(1S)(O)(i), provides for the classification ofa qualified 
alien who: 
) 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaiin . . . and whose (:lchievements 
; have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to ~riler the 
' United State,s to ~.>onti_nue 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 scierice, education, business, or athletics means a level ~f 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly re.strictive for al.iens in 
the fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences. See 59 FR 41818, 41819 (August 15, 1994); 137 
Cong. Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and discussing the "distinction" standard 
fo~ the arts). 
The regulation at .8 C.F.R. § .214.2(o)(3)(iii) states, in {lertinent part: 
Evidentiary critetiafor an 0-1 alien of extraordin.ary q.bility in the fields of science; education, 
business, or athletics:·· An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, e.ducation, 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DE(:!SION 
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 for:ms of documentation: 
(1) 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 inembersl).ip in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievementS of ~heir 
members, as jU.dged by recognized or international experts in their d-isciplines or 
fields; 
(3) Published -in<!.terial in professional or major trade publications or major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien'!> :work in the field for which classification 1s 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of sl!ch published · material, 
and any necessary translation; 
(4) Evidence of the alien's. participation on a pa_nel, o~ individually as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to th;:lt for which 
elassification 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 ofscholarly articles in the field, in professional 
journals, or other major media; 
(7) . Evidence that the alieQ 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 coiUii)and a high 
salary or other remuneration for servic'es, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
(C) Jf (11e criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iil) of this section do not readily apply to the 
benefidary's occupation, the petitioner rnay ·submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the benefiCiary's eligibility. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii) provid¢s: 
The evidenee submitted :With (!.n 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(b)(6)
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION . • • - • ! 
{A) Affi.davits, 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, of organization where the work was performed. 
(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 teniis and set forth the el(pertise of the affiant and the 
mannlr ih which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USClS) i11 a p~tt_icular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence SI.Jbrnitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere (act that the 
petitioner has submitted evidence ~el~ting to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible fot 0-1 cl,assificat_ion. 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. Co\f.rt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th <;:ir. 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant clas:sification, the regulations reviewed 
by the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three out of ten altem(ltive 
criteria in order to establish a bene1Jciary's eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. Cf 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2045(h)(3). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the 
AAO's evalu,ation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. The court eoficll!ded that while 
USCIS may haye raised legiti!Jla.te coneerns about the significance Of the evidence submitted to l.Jleet tWO Of the 
criteria, those concerns should have been raised .jn a subseq~¢nt "final merits determination." Id at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the. AAO's , ~valuation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsiqg the significance of evidence as P<irt of the initial inquiry, the 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 (a,s the AAO concluded)." 1d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 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 deterrttination. 
The AAO finds the Kazarian court's two part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory · criteria Set 
forth for 0-1 noniJllllligtant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iil), (iv) and (v). 
Therefore, in reviewing Service Center d(!Cisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. CaL Z001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 
2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO conducts ~ppellate 
review on a de novo basis). 
In this matter, th~ AAO has reviewed the evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion 
claimed. As the petitioner has failed to submit evidence that satisfies thtee 'of tbe evidenti1!-.rY criteria a.t 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.Z(o)(3)(Ui)(l3), the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of 
three types of evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON,PR.£CEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
. U. Discussion 
A. lntentto Contin~e to Work in the A,te4 of E,xtraordinary Ability in the United States .. 
' 
This petition, fileq on January 17, 2013, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinqry ability 
as a gymnastics coach. The st:a..ttite and regulations require that the beneficiary seek to continue war~ in his 
~rea of extraordinary ablllty in the Unite~ St;:.tes; See section 101{a){15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 . U.S.C. 
§ llOl{a)(lS)(O).(i); 8 C.ER. § 214.2(o)(3)(i). In deliyingthe petition, the qin.~~tor f01,1nd that the record was 
insufficient .to establish th,<!,t t.he beneficiary satisfied the minimum eligibility requirements ne~¢s$iuy to 
I qualify as an allen of extraordinary abiljty. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3){iii). On appeal, counsel for the petitioner 
assertS th;It the petitioner established that the beneficiary is qualified for t.llt! benefit sought. Counsel 
emphasizes the. beM:fi<:ia:ry's qualifications both as a gymnastics coach and as a competitive gymnasL 
Wbile ·a competitive gymnast and a gymnastk:s coach sb.are l.aJowledge of .gymnastics, the two rely on 
different sets c>fb<!o$ic skills. ·Thus, competitive gymnastics .and gymnastics coaching/ii:istructjon a.r~ not the · 
·same area ofexpert .ise. Th_is interpretation has been upheld in Federal Court In Lee v. I.N.S., 231 F. Supp. 2d 
914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
\ 
It is telisOI).Jt.Pk to interpret continuing to work in one's ''area of extraordinary ability'' a.s 
working, in the sa.rile professio .nll} which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily J.n any 
profession in that fieid. For example, Lee's exttaordih .aiy ability as . ~ ba.seball player does not 
imply tba.t he also has extraordinary ability in ail positions or professions in tile basebaJJ 
industry su.ch as a ii).ariager, umpire or coach. 
/4. a~ 918. 
The statute requires th~t the. beneficiary seek entry into the United States ''to continue work. in the area of 
extraordinary ability." Section 10 l(a)(15)(0)(i) of tile Act, 8 U . .S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(0)(i) (2007). -usCis will 
not assume that an alien wi-th extraordinary · ability as an athlete has the s~me level of expertise as· a coach or 
instiiJctot of his' or her sport. However, given the nexus between athletic competition ~nd coachiiJg or sports 
instruction, in a case Wb~te an alien has dearly achieved national or international acclaim as an athlete and 
has sustained that acclail;n ill the field of· C¢a~h:ing at a riational or international level, an adjudicator may 
consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an. ove.raU pattetn of si(stained acclaim and extraordinary 
WiUty such that it can be concluded that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of. expertise; $pecifjcal1y, in 
su,cb <!..case, USCIS will consider the level at which the alien acts as a coach. Accordingiy, we wifl address the 
eyidence regarding the beneficjary's accomplishments as both a competitive _gymnast and gymnastics coach. 
Upoh r¢view a6c;l for tile reasons discus~ed herein, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is fully 
qualified as an alien with extraordinary abili,ty in athletics. 
(b)(6)
NON~PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
B. The Beneficiary;sEtiglbillty under the Regula(ory Criteria 
The beneficiary in this m(,ltter is a native and citizen of Romania. The record consists of a petition with 
supporting documentation, a request for additional evidence (RFE) and the petitioner's reply, the director's 
decision, and the petitioner's appeal. 
If the petitioner establish~s th.rough 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 meet its burde11 of 
proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The petitioner does not claim tbat the 
beneficiary has receive!i a rnajor, internationally recognized award comparable to the Nobel prize as a competitor 
or coach, or that he has coached or trained athletes who have received major, internationally recognized awards or 
prizes. 
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) . . 
As stated previously, the mere fact that the petitioner h<!S submitted evidence relating to three or mote of the 
criteria as required by the regulation does not' necessarily establish that the ·alien satisfies the criteria and is 
eligible for 0-1_classification. The evidence submitted rnust establish that the beneficiary qualifies as an allen of 
extraordinary ability. Here, the petitioner provideci evidence related to four of the eight criteria, set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iil)(B)(J),(2)(7) and (B). The director determined that.the evidence eSt(lblishes that the 
beneficiary meets one of these criteria. These four criteria will be discussed below. 1 . 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nation.ally or internatfonqlly recognized prizes or awarc/s 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In order to meet criterion number one, the petitioner tnust ~ubmit documentation of the alien's receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for _excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(J). The petitioner claims that the beneficiary is able to meet this criterion as both a competitjve 
gyrnn
_ast and as a gymnastics coach who has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
With respeCt to the beneficiary's gymnastics career in Romania, the petitioner submitted a li~t of the beneficiary's 
gymnastics tournament results and awards for the years 1993 through 1997 and 1999 through 2001, for 
tournaments in which it appears he was a semi-finalist, finalist or champion, which included the following2: 
• 2001 -Third Place in Teams, 
--------------------------------------~ 
Romania 
1 On appeal the petitioner raises no objection to the director's determination that the criteria <1t 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3),(4),(5) and (6) have not been met. Therefore these regulatory categories of evidence 
will riot be discussed in this decision. 
2 The beneficiary's finishes _lesser than third place have been omitted from the lists provided by the petitioner, 
as the petitioner h~s not established that placingin 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)
Page 7 
• 2001- First Place in Vault, 
• 2000 -Third Place in Teams, 
• 2000 - First Place, 
• 2000 - First Place, 
• 1999- Second Place in Vault, 
• 1999 """" .Fii'St Place in Rings 
• 1999- Se.cond Place, 
• 1999- First Place, 
• 1997 ~First Place All-Around, 
• 1997- First Place in Para11el :aars, 
• 1996- First Place in All-Around, 
• 1995- First Place in Floor, 
• 1995 -Second Place, Parallel Bars, 
• 1994- Third Place in All-Around, 
• 1993 -Second Place, 
. • 1993-'- Fi.rst Place in All-Around, 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Romania 
Romania 
Romania 
Rornania 
, Romania 
Romania 
Romania 
Romania 
Romania 
Romania 
Roma.nia 
Romania 
Romania 
Rornania 
Romania 
Tile petitioner submitted documentation evidencing the receipt of such awards by the beneficiary. In addition, 
the petitioner submitted 
documentation evidencing the beneficiary's receipt in 2008 of a Perfecting Certi:flcate 
from the which indicates the beneficiary "graduated the professional 
formation 'course .. . at the gymnastics discipline." 
The plain language of the regu.lation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) requires ''[d]ocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of l~sser nationally or internattonally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field, of 
endeavor [emphasis added] ." It is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for every element of this 
crit.etion. Not only 111ust the petitioner demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of awards and prizes, it J,ilus.t also 
demonstrate that those awards and prizes are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. In other 
words, the petitioner must establish thai the beneficiarY's awards and prizes ate recognized nationally or 
internationally beyond the awarding entities. 
Overall, the evidence is insufficient to estal:llish that the beneficiary's tournament victories resulted in his 
receipt of nationally or in-ternationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence as a competitive ~ymnast. 
While the petitioner submitted documentation evidencing the beneficiary's receipt of aw~mis, t)Je petitioner 
has not submitted documentation demonstrating that the awards received from these competitions are 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. In addition, the AAO notes that all of the awards 
that the beneficiary won were injunior cqrnp~titions which appear to be regional or local in nature. Without 
documentary evidence regarding the actual competitions themselves; such as the level of accomplishment 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 tol_lrna111ents are national or international, and therefore that the 
result~ 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 inten1ationally recognized," The burden is on 
the petitioner to den1onstrate the level of recognition and achievement associated with the beneficiary's 
awards. Therefore, the evidence submitted w~th respect to the beneficiary's national and international awards 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
does npt demonstrate the requisite sustained national or international acclaim as a competitive athlete in . 
Romania. 
Although the (.(Vidence does not establish the beneficiary's extraordinary hbility as a competitive athlete, the 
petitioner can meet this criterion if it can establish that the benefiCiary has coached athletes who have received 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the sport; merely establishing that he has 
coa<;heJl ·athletes who compete at the national level is not sufficient. The evidence does Qot establish that the 
beneficiary has received a nationally pr internationally recognized award for excellence as a gymnastics cbach. 
While the evidence of record provides some information regarding individual athletes who are claimed to have 
been trained or ins trotted by the bene(iciary, the ~vidence does not establish th<J.t he hi!$ ~rained athletes who have 
received significant national_ or international awards. 
The petiHouer .submitted documentation pertaining to the beneficiary's coaching proficiency level. In 
addition, _the petitioner submitted letters pertipen:t to the beneficiary's experience teaching gymnasts 
competing atthe junior level, documentary evidence of the receipt of awards received by gymnasts claimed to 
b<J.ve been coached by the beneficiary and articles pertaining to students. 
The petitioner submitted the beneficiary's dated October 1, 
4008, wbich indicates. that the beneficiary is certified as a gymnastics trainer at "the 3'ct category, based on the 
university graduation certificate ... [d.ated June 2.5, 2008]." The petitioner ~;tlso submitted cettifiG~:tt.es d(J.ted 
in 201 0 from certifying that the beneficiary has achieved ''the level 4 certificate in 
toac.hing gymnastics- senior coach Women's Artistic" and "the level 4 certificate in coaching gymnastics­
senior coach Men's Artistic." The petitioner llas not established that receiving certifi~;;ll,tion. as a gymnastics 
trainer in the third category in or achieving the level four gymnastics coaching 'Certification in ~ 
[s the equivalent of an "award or prize for excelle11ce in the field," as required by the plain language of 
. tbe reg1!lations . 
. ·The beneficiary indicates in his resume that from 2007 until 2010 he was the head coach of m~n's artistic 
gymhJJ.stics and a coach of women's artistic gymnastics· at 
f{otij..aiJia.. The benefici<J,ry further indicates in his resume that he achieved coaching tournament results and 
awards in Romania for students competing at the junior level as follows: 
• 2009 -Second Place on Floor, 
• 2010-'- First Place on Floor, 
• ZOlO ·~ Sec;ond Plate on Floor, 
• 2010 =Second Place on Pommel, 
• 2010 -Third Place All Around, 
The beneficiary's coaching experience in Romania was documented solely through testimonial evidence. The 
petitioner submitted a letter from Mr. General Secretary, 
who writes with respect to the beneficiaiy's coaching: 
(b)(6)
Pt.ge 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
. Hereby we confirm that [the beneficiary] was a coach at the male gymnastics section of the 
during the 2008-2011 timeline and has achieved the 
followil)g results: 
• Gymnast 
2008 - First Place on Floor, 
2009 - First Place on Floor, 
2010- First Place on Floor, 
• Gymnast 
2009 - Second Place Pummel, 
2009 ~Second Place on Floor, 
2009- Third Piace All-Around 
2010- Second Place on Floor, 
2010- Third Place All-Around 
_; The petitioner -submitted documeotation of the rec(;!ipt of the awards received by the gy.(ilQ.asts. . In an 
additional letter submitted in support of the appeal, Mr. writes: 
With this letter we certify that [the beneficiary] is a Level 3 accreqited coach by the 
and he is a well~kn.own name in gymnastics, especially on 
a juniors level, with outstanding results at the demonstrating some 
extrt.ordiQary abilities as a coach on (sic) a relatively short period. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Professor Director, 
who writes with respect to the beneficiary's ~oaching: 
The present document certifies that [the beneficiary] has been employed as a coach within the 
· Gymnastics department of our club from 2008-2011 an~ has achieved outstanding results 
countrywide at the teams and individual contests, . contributing through these, at the 
improvement ()f the number of medals from our club's record, ... [The beneficiary] was a 
. model employee for our club, passionate and attached to the athletes composing his grol!p. 
Professor indicates in his letter the same tou'rnamen't results for gymnasts and 
as indicated in the letter from Mr. and also credits the results to the beneficiary's 
coaching. 
( 
The berteficiary's coaching experience at Englaod was documented soJely 
through press releases ·published on two websites, and 
The beneficiary indicates in his resume that he was employed at as a Head Coach of 
from May 2010 until the date of filing the petition. The press releases 
· indicate that the beneficiary was one of two coaches of a group of junior gymnasts who won sever'al medals at 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
the 
(2011 and 2012), 
(2011) and the 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
and excelled at the 
-~;... 
competition in 
competition in (2011), the 
(2010). 
In a peer consultation letter dated December 7, 2012, Director of Program Administration of 
states that the beneficiary "is an internationally respected 
gymnastics professional who wiii be a great asset to our program." 
Upon review, the petitioner h~s failed to establish that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of his field of 
end_eavor. The s.ubmitted evidence does not establish that any of the beneficiary's students are competitors at 
the adult, professional level, or have won national or international tournaments or other nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for gymnastics excellence. Rather, the evidence indicates that the 
beneficiary h_as been teaching amateur athletes competing at the junior level? Although the petitioner has 
submitted copies of awards received by students, 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 
In addition, overall the record does not contain sufficient evidence of the coach-athlete relationship between 
the beneficiary and the junior athlt,:tes he is claimed to have coached. For exaiJiple, Mr. and 
Professor do not indicate what role the beneficiary played in the. success of individual athletes 
sucl:t as Mr. and Mr. or indicate that the beneficiary contributed significantly to the athletes' 
receipt of any nationaJly or internationally recogiJized awards. Further, if the beneficiary was the he<J.d coac;h 
of a successful team or individual athlete who won nationally or internationally recognized awards, it would 
be reasonable to expect him to be able to produce some independent documentation of these coach-athlete 
relation,sbips beyond testimonials from persons with whom he is personally acquainte(}. 
Finally, the accounts of the persons providing testimonials do not fully correspond to the beneficiary's account 
of his own career as reflected in his professional resume. For example, the testimonials of Mr. and 
Prof{!ssor Indicate the beneficiary was coaching gyQlnastics in Romania from 2008 to :fOlL 
Also, the petitioner submitted documentation that gymnaSts received additional 
gymnastics awards in 2011 and 2012, respectively, and that other gymnasts claimed to have been coached by 
the beneficiary, , won awards in 2011 and 2012, respectively. However, the 
beneficiary indicates in his resume that he was coaching gymnastics in England from May 2010 until the date 
of filing this petition. 
As stated above, the 0-1 visa classification is restnctlve and requires extensive documentation of 
extraordinary achievement. Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's competitive 
3 Co1.fi1sel's appeal brief acknowledges this fact, stating ''the relevant field of endeavor here is junior 
gymnastics. That is the field ... in which [the beneficiary] exclusively has worked. The skill sets for 
working with ·Children are considerably different from those working with older children and young adults. 
Therefore, [the beneficiary's] accomplishments ... as a coach in junior coaching, which are considerable, 
demonstrate that he is at the top of his field of endeavor." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
gymnastiCs ca,reer at the junior level in Romania resulted in his receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awardS for gymnastics excellence. The record also does not contain sufficient evidence 
that the beneficiary has coached athletes who have received nationally or internationally recognized awards 
for excellence in the gymnastics. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
i.S soi1ght, whith require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged b)l recognized 
national or international experts in the.ir disciplines or fields 
In order to establish that the beneficiary rheets the second criterion, at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2), the 
petitioner must document 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 this ~egard, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's 
dated October 1, 2008, which indicates that the beneficiary is certified as a gymnastics trainer at "the 3rct 
category, based on the university graduaHon certificate ... [dated June 25, 2008]." The petitioner also 
submitted certificates dated in 20 I 0 from certifying that the beneficiary has achieved "the 
level 4 certificate in coaching gymnastics - senior coach Women's Artistic" and ''the level 4 certificate in 
coaching gymnastics- senior coach Men's Artistic." 
On appeal the petitioner submitted an additional support letter dated May 10~ 2013 from its president, stating 
that the beneficiary's membership in the as a Level 3 Coach and the 
as a Level 4 Coach "requires outstanding achievement as recogni:?,ed by both the 
gymnastics governing bodies and the international gymnastics community, as a whole." 
The netitioner asserts that Level 3 is "the highest level of gymnastics coaching certification possible in 
" The petitioner indicates in its letter that achieving a level 4 certification in I required 
the beneficiary .to provide the following: 
• Two separate letters of support, indicating Suitability to work with athletes 
• Copies of certificates and awards 
• Curriculum Vitae, showing all relevant coaching experience 
• List of gymnastics skills successfully coached as part of his Romanian qualification 
The evidence submitted to establish the beneficiary's membership in associations in the field which require 
outstanding achievements is from the petitioning entity. The Board 6f Immigration Appeals (the Board) has 
held that testimony shoul~ not be disregarded simplybecause it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 
I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The Boardalso held, however: "We not only encourage, but 
require the introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available.;' /d.; see 
. also Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998) (noting that there is a greater need for corroborative 
evidence when the testimony lacks specificity, detail, or credibility). The petitioner has not supported the 
self-promotional evidence with independent, corroborative evidence that membership 1n these associations in 
the field requires outstanding achievements. Upon review, the record lacks evidence that membership in 
those organizations requires outstanding achievements in the field of gymnastics coaching. For example, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
beneficil,lty's indicates that the beneficiary's level 3 
certification as a gymnastics trainer by the is based on hi~ univerSity 
graduation certificate from the A review of the submitted 
documentation regarding the beneficiary's university degree indicates the beneficiary's ranking at graduation 
''was classified on position 73 from the whole 133 number of graduates." 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the second criterion based upon his 
membership in the or the While his 
achievement of the Level 3 certification, apparently the highest certification 
o(feted by the orgaojzation, is noteworthy, the record is devoid ofany evidence that "outstanding achievement" is 
a pre-requisite ·to taking the certification examination, or that lllembetship in the organization requited the 
beneficiary to be judged by recognized national or international experts in his field. Accordingly, the beneficiary 
does not rneet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations 
and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
The director concluded without discussion that the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to meet this 
·criterion. 
The petitioner has claimed that the beneficiary meets the seventh criterion in that he has be.en 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). (As previously discussed, the benefici_ary's coaching experience in Romania was 
documented through the testimonial evidence of witnesses Mr. and Professor 
while the beneficiary's coaching experience in England was documented solely through press 
releases published on two websites. Mr. . General Secretary, writes 
that the beneficiary Was a coach in the male gymnastics section of the during 
the years 2008-2011, during which time he achieved tournament victories at national championships with two 
gymnasts competing at the junior level. The press releases from the beneficiary's former employer, 
England indicate that the beneficiary was one of two coaches of a group of junior gymnasts 
who won several medals and excelled at local competitions in Great ~ritain in 2010 through 2012. 
While the beneficiary has clearly been able to provide expertise in the area of gymnastics coaching within the 
organizations that have employed him, the evidence does not establish that his role as a gymnastics coach was 
essential at critical for those organizations as a whole. For in~tance, the petitioner's eVidence does not 
demonstrate how the beneficiary's role differentiated him from the other gymnastiCs .coaches at those 
organizations. The submitted evidence does not establish that the beneficiary was responsible for the 
previous etnployets' success or sta11ding to a degree consistent with the meaning of "esse!1lial or ctiticaJ 
capacity." Nor 
does the submitted evidence establish that such organizations have a "distinguished reputation." 
In light of the above, the evidence submitted does not satisfy the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
(b)(6)
' Page 13 
NON-PRECf,DE.NT DECISION 
Evidence that alien has either commancted .a /J.igh salary ot wi/i commaiuj a high salary or other 
remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidenc,e 
The eighth and fi.nal ·criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence th<tt the benefic;iary has either 
commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or ·other remuneration for services, evidenced by 
co·ntracts or oth~r reliable evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). The petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 
that the beneficiary will .receive _an annual salary of $36,000, plus bonuses valued at up to $11,500 per year. 
On appeal, <;;ounsel states as follows: 
The Service concluded that 
[the beneficiary] did not meet this criteria [sic]. However, the 
Service found that the average salary for this position is $29,000, and the rate of pay for [the 
beneficiary] is 24% higher than the <~.ver~ge salary. Th~refore, although [the beneficiary] may 
not be coiiunanding a high salary in comparison with other fields of end~avor, he will be 
compensated at a significantly higher salary than comparable professionals in the field. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. The 'petitioner has not 
submitted objective supporting evidence to corroborate counsel's claim that the beneficiary's compensation would 
be significantly higher than what an average gymnastics coach earns, such that it would be considered a "high 
salary" commensurate with extraordinary ability. Such evidence could include st.atistical comparisons of t.h.e 
salaries in the field of endeavoL Again, 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. Without documentary evidence to support t.he claim, lM assertioJJs of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 J.&N Dec .. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); 
Ma.tter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Summary 
The evidence does not establish that the beneficiary has, received a major, i.nt~m~tionally recog11ized award 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), and the documentation submitted does not meet three of the eight other 
evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 <; .. F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(1ii)(B). 
C, Comparable Evidence 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) provides that an allen of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, 
eq(IC<l,tion, business or athletics must demonstrate sustain,ed national or international acclaim and recognitio"n for 
achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of receipt of a major intelilationally recognized award 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), or by submitting evidence to satisfy at least three of the eight forms of 
docurilentati~m set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). We further acknowledge that the regulation at 8 C.F,R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iiiXC) provides "[i]f the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of the s.ection do not readily apply to the 
ben<:!ficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility.'' It is clear from the use of the word "must'' in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) that the rule, not the exceptio-n, 
is that the petitioner is required to submit evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. Thus, it is the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to the beneficiary's occupation 
and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.f.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J) through (8). 
The petitioner has cl~imed eligibility under the "comparable evi<ience" r~gulation , based upon t!:te submitted 
evidence. Counsel emphasizes that evidence relating to the beneficiary's accomplishments as a competitive 
gyQinast and gy(llnw;tjcs ¢oath meets the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(C). 
Counsel cites to no authority for consideration. of such evidence under 8 C .. F.R, § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) as 
comparable evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility. The submitted evidence has been considered aboye with 
· respect to the beneficiary's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field of endeayor and with respect to the beneficiary's employment in a critical or essential capacity. 
Whil~ the Mtitioner claims eligibility under the "comparable evidence" regulation, i!t has also claimed eligibility 
under 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J),(2),(7) and (8). The regulatory language precludes the consideration of 
comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for O~ 1 classification in the 
benefiCiary's occupation as a gymnasts coach cannot be established by submitting documentation relevant to at 
least. three of the eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)._ An inability to meet a criterion is not necessarily 
evidence that the criterion does not apply to the beJeficiaty's oceupation. .· · 
Where M alien is simply unable to meet or submit documentary evidence meeting three of these criteria, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) does not allow for the sl,ibrnission of cmnparaple 
evidence. 
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(lii)(B). The AAO will not conduct a final merits 
cteterminatio~. 
For the above-stated reasons, the petitioner has not established the benefiCiary's eligibility pursuant to the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), and the petition may not be approved.4 
4 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOl, 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 fimll meri'ts 
determination as the official who made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also 
Section 103(a)(1) of the Act; Section 204(b)of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150 .1 (effective March 1, 
. . . . . . . \ 
2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec. 458, 460 
(BIA 1987)(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions). . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
the appeal will be dismissed for the above st;;tted reasoiJs, with ea<;h consi<iered as an independent <:tncl 
alternate basis for the deCision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
for the immigratiortbenefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 
127, 128(BIA 2013). IIere, tbat burden h;;ts not been met. 
ORDER:. The appeal is dismissed.