dismissed O-1A Case: Squash

ickmti~i data de1Mad 
t clearly und 
Pn-' invasion of pcrsond pfi- 
PUBIJC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 07 001 54685 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 2 9 2008 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U. S .C. § 1 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
b 
dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 07 001 54685 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a "premier athletic club." It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a squash professional in 
order to teach and coach squash players. The company filed ths petition seeking to classify the beneficiary 
as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Imgration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the record as presently constituted failed to establish that 
coachmg squash players is related to a specific athletic event or events, and the duties of the position does not 
constitute continuing in the work of athletic performance of the extraordinary level. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erred in its decision. Counsel explained that the petitioner is 
the largest squash training facility in Pennsylvania, and one of the largest in the United States. Counsel 
further stated that the petitioner was selected as the host for the U. S. National Doubles tournament and thus, it 
will be a training facility for top athletes, and the petitioner wishes to "employ squash professionals of 
extraordinary ability who can train, coach and teach the best players in America." Counsel contends that the 
director erred in denying the petition on the ground that the beneficiary's duties in the United States does not 
relate to a specific event as defined in the statute. Counsel asserts that the employment agreement is 
sufficient to satisfy the requirement of an event under the regulations. Furthermore, counsel states that the 
beneficiary's "employment duties such as teachmg, coachng and coordinating athletic events, taken together, 
constitutes an 'event' according to the statute." Finally, counsel asserts that the director acted in an arbitrary 
and capricious manner when it concluded, with no prior notice of the issue, that the record does not establish 
that the beneficiary will be performing at a particular event. 
Upon review of the record, the AAO withdraws the director's statements concluding that the petitioner failed 
to establish that coaching squash players is related to a specific athletic event or events, and withdraws this 
particular issue of the decision. As noted by counsel, the statute allows an employment contract to constitute 
an event under the regulations. In 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3), the regulation states: 
Event means an activity such as, but not limited to, a scientific project, conference, 
convention, lecture series, tour, exhibit, business project, academic year, or engagement. 
Such activity may include short vacations, promotional appearances, and stopovers which 
are incidental and/or related to the event. A group of related activities may also be 
considered to be an event. In the case of an 0-1 athlete, the event could be the alien's 
contract. 
The record contains a letter from the petitioner's General Partner and Director, dated August 9, 2006, 
formally offering the beneficiary a job as an assistant squash pro. The letter indicated that the employment 
will commence on November 1, 2006, vd the petitioner expected a three-year commitment fkom the 
beneficiary. The petitioner has established that, as of the date of filing, the beneficiary was corning to the 
United States for an engagement of three years duration to perform in an event as defined at 8 CFR 
2 14.2(0)(3)(ii). The petitioner has overcome the director's objection. 
WAC 07 001 54685 
Page 3 
The director also denied the petition on the basis that the beneficiary would not fill a position that requires 
extraordinary ability. As noted in the Federal Register upon publication of the final rule governing the 0- 
1 visa classification, "there is no statutory support for the requirement that an 0-1 alien must be coming 
to the U.S. to perform services requiring an alien of 0-1 caliber." 59 Fed. Reg. 41 8 18, 41 820 (Aug. 15, 
1994). The Act only requires that the alien enter the United States to continue to work in the area of 
extraordinary ability. In this case, the beneficiary claims that her area of extraordinary ability is as a 
squash athlete, however, she plans to perform duties as a squash coach and instructor in the U.S. Thus, 
the petition may not be approved at this time as the record, as presently constituted, does not demonstrate 
that the beneficiary is fblly qualified as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
Section 10 1 (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 extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 
Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is "at the very top" of her field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 14.2(0)(3)(ii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. An alien of 
extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business, or athletics must 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for achevernents in 
the field of expertise by providing evidence of: 
(A) 
 Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) 
 At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(I) 
 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 membershp in associations in the field for 
which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of 
their members, as judged by recognized or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields; 
WAC 07 001 54685 
Page 4 
(3) 
 Published material in professional or major trade publications or major 
media about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for whch 
classification is sought, whlch shall include the title, date, and author of 
such published material, and any necessary translation; 
(4) 
 Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that 
for which classification is sought; 
(5) 
 Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(6) 
 Evidence of the alien's authorshp of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional journals, or other major media; 
(7) 
 Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will 
command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by 
contracts or other reliable evidence; 
(8) 
 Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a 
high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or 
other reliable evidence. 
8 
(c) 
 If the criteria in paragraph (0)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 2 14.2(0)(5)(i)(A) requires, in pertinent part: 
Consultation with an appropriate U.S. peer group (which could include a person or persons with 
expertise in the field), labor and/or management organization regarding the nature of the work to 
be done and the alien's qualifications is mandatory before a petition for 0-1 or 0-2 classification 
can be approved. 
The record consists of a petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional evidence (RFE) and 
the petitioner's reply, the director's decision, an appeal and additional evidence supporting the appeal. The 
petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability as a squash professional. 
The petitioner indicates that the duties of the proffered position are "teaching and coaching squash 
players," and will include coordinating squash programs and events and individual coaching and training. 
In reviewing the petition, the AAO finds that while the beneficiary may have some acclaim as a 
competitive squash player, the record was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary had achieved 
sustained acclaim as a squash teacher, instructor or coach. 
WAC 07 001 54685 
Page 5 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner established that the beneficiary meets at 
least three of the eight evidentiary criteria for 0-1 classification as outlined at 8 C.F.R. $ 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B) and thus is qualified for the benefit sought. Counsel's arguments primarily emphasize 
the beneficiary's qualifications as a competitive squash player. 
While a competitive squash player and a squash coach share knowledge of squash, the two rely on 
different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive squash and squash coaching/instruction are not the same 
area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in Federal Court. In Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 
914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
worlung in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in 
any profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player 
does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the 
baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Id. at 91 8. 
The statute requires that the beneficiary seek entry into the United States "to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability." Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) (2007). U.S. 
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 sports instruction, in a case where an alien has clearly 
achieved 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 alien acts as a coach. Accordingly, we will address the evidence regarding 
the beneficiary's accomplishments as both a squash player and coach. 
Upon review and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is 
fully qualified as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received 
a major, internationally recognized award such as a Nobel Prize, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(A), 
then it will meet its burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. Here, 
the petitioner has not submitted evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized 
award. 
In cases such as this one, where petitioners seek 0-1 classification of an alien athlete and coach, USCIS will 
consider the success of athletes coached by the alien as comparable evidence. The record also does not 
demonstrate that the beneficiary has instructed, trained or coached any squash players who have won 
major, internationally recognized awards. 
WAC 07 001 54685 
Page 6 
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. 5 2 14,2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
In order to meet criterion number one, the petitioner must submit documentation of the alien's receipt of 
nationally or intemationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
2 1 4.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(l). The petitioner submitted the following: (1) the beneficiary's membership in the 
1999 Australian National Team at World Junior Squash Championships; (2) a letter from the principal of 
the Glen Waverly Secondary College that stated the beneficiary was selected for the 1997 Australian 
Junior Squash Championship; (3) the beneficiary's resume outlining the awards and achievement she 
received in the field of squash; and, (4) a print out from the Women's International Squash Professional 
Authority (WISPA) ranking the beneficiary as 41 in the world for women squash players, and outlining 
the competitions in whlch the beneficiary competed. 
Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's tournament victories resulted in her 
receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for squash excellence. The beneficiary 
is ranked 41 in the world for women squash players, and number 80 for the ranking of Australian squash 
players. While impressive, it does not prove that the beneficiary reached a level of expertise indicating 
that she is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor. In addition, 
the petitioner did not indicate how many women are ranked by WISPA and if WISPA is the only authority 
that can rank squash players worldwide. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1 972)). 
Furthermore, the record contains no evidence that the beneficiary has instructed or coached players who have 
won national or international tournaments or other nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for squash excellence. The petitioner submitted a letter from the Director of the Fran Otten Stadium, a sports 
complex where the beneficiary worked as a coach. The letter states that the beneficiary "trains and works 
amongst some of the best athletes and squash players in the world." However, the letter does not indicate the 
specific squash players the beneficiary coached, and if the squash players coached by the beneficiary obtained 
nationally or intemationally recognized prizes or awards for squash excellence. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted a letter from a squash player who stated that she went firom the world ranking of 
number 86 to 25 in eighteen months. also stated that her work with the beneficiary "has been an 
instrumental part of reachng my current world ranking (14)." However, the letter does not explain if the 
beneficiary coached during this time, or explain how the beneficiary assisted this individual in 
reaching a higher ranking in squash. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, at 8 C.F.R. Ij 214.2(0)(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. 
WAC 07 001 54685 
Page 7 
For criterion number two, the record contains evidence that the beneficiary is a member of the Squash 
Board Netherlands National Team; a member of the Australian World Junior Squash Team, which 
selected only four players to represent Australia; and a member of the Women's International Squash 
Professional Association Event and World Tour List. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from the Squash Nond Nederland stating that the beneficiary has 
"played in three European Championships and one World Championship as a respected member of the 
Dutch Team." The letter further stated that the beneficiary's highest ranking in the WISPA list was 
position 37 and she played as the number 3 in the team order, and in 2004 the team won the silver medal 
at the European Championships. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the second criterion based upon her 
membership in the teams listed above and WISPA. The record is devoid of any evidence that "outstanding 
achievement" is a pre-requisite in becoming a member of WISPA and whether it required the beneficiary to 
be judged by recognized national or international experts in her field. 
To meet the third criterion, the petitioner must submit 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. $ 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The petitioner submitted photocopies of many articles that mention the beneficiary, although not all of the 
submitted evidence includes the title, date and author of such published material. The petitioner has not 
established how these publications could be classified as a professional publication, major trade publication 
or major media. Moreover, the criterion requires evidence that the beneficiary has achieved national or 
international recognition as evidenced by the published material. None of these materials inhcate that the 
beneficiary has acheved national or international recognition as a squash instructor, and none of the 
published materials relate to squash players who have been coached by the beneficiary. Accordingly, the. 
petitioner has not satisfied this third criterion. 
To meet the fourth criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence of the beneficiary's participation on a panel, 
or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for 
which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 8 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
For criterion number four, the petitioner submitted evidence of alien's participation on a panel or individual 
as a judge of work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. The petitioner submitted two 
certificates fiom Squash Bond Nederland stating that the beneficiary successfully completed the training and 
examination for Squash Trainer Level I and 11. The certification was required for the beneficiary to coach at 
the Squash Bond Nederland. While her achievement of Squash Trainer Level I and I1 certification is 
noteworthy, the record does not establish that the beneficiary participated in a panel or individual as a judge 
of work of others. The petitioner did not explain the significance of the work judged by the beneficiary and 
the criteria used to choose the beneficiary as a judge. Obtaining a series of certificates to coach squash 
players relates to the beneficiary's basic qualifications to act as a coach; the certificates do not establish that 
the beneficiary "judged" other individuals in the same field of specialization. 
WAC 07 001 54685 
Page 8 
The fifth criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, 
or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(5). The 
petitioner did not submit any evidence to establish tks criterion. 
Similarly, the petitioner has not attempted to establish that the beneficiary has authored scholarly articles in 
the field in professional or major trade publications or other major media, or otherwise claimed that the 
beneficiary meets the sixth criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 21 4,2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(6). 
In order to establish the seventh criterion, the petitioner must 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. 9 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
For criterion number seven, the petitioner submitted three letters of support. The first letter is from 
the Director of Frans Otten Stadions, Holland, the training facility for the Dutch 
National Team. The letter stated that the facility is the "biggest squash complex in Holland as well as in 
Europe and one of the top five squash facilities in the world," and thus "attracts top players around the 
world to train, perform and compete." The letter stated that the beneficiary was responsible for coaching 
and developing programs for the club and her "position has been critical in ensuring viability of Dutch 
national programs and international status of the facility." 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from the Dutch National team number 2 player. 
stated that she went from the world ranking of number 86 to number 25 in just 18 months and 
asserted that her work with the beneficiary "has been an instrumental part of reaching my current world 
ranking (1 4) ." 
The third letter is from the manager of Houtrust Squash B.V. The letter stated that Houtust 
Squash is "one of the leading squash facilities in Europe and we employ only top ranked players as 
coaches," and indicated that the beneficiary "played, trained and coached," at this facility. 
The letters do not establish that the beneficiary's contributions were original and that they were of a major 
significance to her field of endeavor. As mentioned above, the letter from 
indicate that the beneficiary was her squash coach. In addition, although the 
by Frans Otten Stadions and Houtrust Squash B.V. as a coach, it is not clear how many hours she coached 
and the type of squash players coached by the beneficiary. The evidence does not establish that the 
beneficiary coached professional squash players. In reviewing the beneficiary's resume under coaching 
experience, it states that she was the head coach at Hourtrust Squasgh and Fitness and was involved in 
"organizing of Tournaments, club days, the running of school programs, individual and team training 
sessions up to 25 hrs of on court work." The duties do not indicate that the beneficiary coached 
professional squash players with sustained national or international acclaim. In addition, the beneficiary 
stated in her resume that she worked part-time during the squash playing season, thus, the beneficiary was 
not a full-time squash coach. In addition, since the beneficiary did not coach during the squash season, it 
is reasonable to assume that she did not coach any of the professional squash players that would require 
coaching during the squash playing season. 
WAC 07 001 54685 
Page 9 
No evidence was submitted in relation to criteria numbers three, five, six and eight. 
Counsel addressed the issue of comparable evidence as it provided a list of all the national and international 
tournaments in which the beneficiary has participated in &om 2000 until 2006, when the instant petition was 
filed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(C) permits "comparable evidence" where the eight criteria 
do not "readily apply" to the alien's occupation. The list indicates that the beneficiary competed in 63 
national and international tournaments fkom 2000 until 2006. The documentation does not establish evidence 
of the beneficiary's extraor&nary ability as a squash player or a squash coach. The list of tournaments do not 
indicate if the beneficiary received any awards when competing in the tournaments. In addition, the list of 
tournaments do not establish the beneficiary as a extraordinary squash coach. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 
137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for extraordinary 
ability, the statute requires evidence of "sustained national or international acclaim" and evidence that the 
alien's achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor through "extensive documentation." 
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's abilities have been so recognized. In order to 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is "at the very 
top" of her field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 214.2(0)(3)(ii). The beneficiary's achievements have not "risen 
to this level. 
Overall, the record does not establish that the beneficiary has extraordinary ability in athletics, whch has 
been demonstrated by sustained national or intemational acclaim and that her achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation, as required by section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Act. 
The petitioner submitted no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized 
award and the documentation submitted does not meet three of the eight other evidentiary criteria specified in 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). Consequently, the beneficiary is not eligible for 
nonimnigrant classification under section 101 (a)(15)(0) of the Act and the petition must be denied. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 36 1. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.