dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Room 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 07 055 52449 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER D~~~MAR 2 I 2D~B 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101 (a)(] 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. 
, ?F-+ Ro ert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Is 
dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 07 055 52449 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is self-described as a tennis, fitness and sports club. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a tennis 
professionaVcoach for a three-year period. The company filed ths petition seelung to classify the beneficiary as 
an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an 
alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim as a tennis instructor with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erred with respect to her 
analysis of several of the evidentiary criteria for the requested classification, and that the beneficiary qualifies as 
an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. Counsel submits a brief and additional documentary evidence in 
support of the appeal. 
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. 8 214.2(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. 5 214.2(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 achievements in the field of 
expertise by providing evidence oE 
(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; 
WAC 07 055 52449 
Page 3 
(2) 
 Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(3) 
 Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, 
and any necessary translation; 
(4) 
 Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(6) 
 Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, 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. 
(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 record consists of a petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional evidence (WE) and the 
petitioner's reply, the director's decision, an appeal and brief, and additional evidence supporting the appeal. The 
beneficiary in this case is a native and citizen of Barbados who last entered the United States on August 9, 
2006 as an F-1 nonimmigrant student. The record shows that the beneficiary competed in national and 
international tournaments as a tennis player since 1992, and that she has some tennis coaching experience in 
the year prior to the filing of the petition. The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a tennis professional/coach. 
In denying the petition, the director found that the beneficiary may meet two or more of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B) as a competitive tennis player, the petitioner had not established that 
the beneficiary met at least three of the criteria as a tennis coach. The director also observed that there was no 
WAC 07 055 52449 
Page 4 
evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award equivalent to that listed 
at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A). 
Upon review and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is hlly 
qualified as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
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. tj 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) (2007). Competitive 
athletics and sports instruction are not the same area of expertise and the 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 tennis player and coach. 
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. tj 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its burden of 
proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligbility for 0-1 classification. 
At the time of filing, counsel for the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary meets at least three of the eight 
criteria provided at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B), but did not claim that the beneficiary qualifies for 0-1 
classification on the basis of her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A). However, on appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner did in fact submit evidence that the 
beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award equivalent to those contemplated by the 
regulations. Specifically, counsel states that the petitioner submitted substantial evidence that the beneficiary has 
been ranked the number one tennis player in her category in Barbados for many years and that she was the 
Champion of the Caribbean regon in her category. The petitioner submits a letter dated March 13, 2007 from 
Michael I. King, Ambassador to the United States from Barbados, who attests to the beneficiary's reputation as a 
"veritable tennis prodigy," who has played on national teams and received the distinction of Champion of the 
Caribbean region in 1997. Counsel asserts that this award qualifies as a "major intemationally recognized award" 
consistent with 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A). 
Counsel's arguments in this regard are unpersuasive. The petitioner provided no further explanation or 
evidence that would establish the significance of the "Champion of the Caribbean" title achieved by the 
beneficiary, and without further evidence regarding the event and its importance within the sport, has not 
established that this award can be deemed a major, internationally recognized award. Furthermore, the 
petitioner provided no primary evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of the 1997 award. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
Calzfornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
WAC 07 055 52449 
Page 5 
In cases such as ths 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 tennis players who have won major, 
internationally recognized awards. 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the petitioner 
must establish the beneficiary's eligbility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
For criterion number one, which requires documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor, counsel for the petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary has received numerous awards for excellence in her field and has been ranked as the number one 
women's tennis play 
 of Barbados for several years. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 
August 8,2006 from 
 of the Barbados Olympic Association, Inc. who stated that the beneficiary 
has been Barbados' number one ranlung female tennis player since 1997, and that she possesses the highest 
International Tennis Federation (ITF) Junior ranhng in Barbados at 116 in singles and 104 in doubles. The 
petitioner did not provide any other documentary evidence confirming the beneficiary's rank either within 
Barbados or her ITF ranlung. 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. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from 1 of the Barbados Tennis Association, Inc., who 
states that the beneficiary has received many accolades including recognition by the Association as the Player of 
the Year in the years 1997, 1998 and 2000. He further stated that the beneficiary is a member of the Barbados 
Federal Cup Team and has represented Barbados at the Federal Cup, the Central American and Caribbean 
Games, the Pan American Games, the World Youth Games, the Orange Bowl and the NEC Youth Cup, as well as 
a member of ITF touring teams for Euro e in 2000 and in South America from 1996 to 2000. In addition, the 
petitioner submitted a letter from of National Sports Council, who acknowledged that the 
beneficiary has been an outstanding junior athlete in Barbados for some time, receiving an Appreciation Reward 
in 1997, and a Junior Outstanding Sports Personality Award in 2000. The petitioner provided color photographs 
of these and a number of other awards received by the beneficiary. Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
, head coach for the Clemson University women's tennis team, who stated that the beneficiary, as 
captain of the team, helped guide the team to two NCAA Final Four Championships in 2004 and 2005, and an 
ACC Conference Championship in 2004. further stated that the beneficiary and her partner were 
ranked among the top 50 doubles teams in the United States. 
The director found the evidence sufficient to establish that the beneficiary has received nationally or 
internationally recognized awards as a competitor in tennis, but found that the petitioner had not shown that the 
beneficiary had won any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for her performance as a coach. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner submitted the following evidence relating to the beneficiary's experience as a 
tennis coach: 
WAC 07 055 52449 
Page 6 
A letter dated September 27,2006 from 
 head coach of women's tennis at Cornell 
University, who confirmed that the beneficiary worked for her as a women's assistant tennis 
coach from January 24,2006 until April 24,2006. 
The above-referenced letter from, who states that the beneficiary "has the slulls 
necessary to teach and perform the sport at the highest level," and "can help develop our juniors 
to be competitive amongst the world ranks." 
In an RFE issued on December 22,2006, the director advised the petitioner that while USCIS recognizes a nexus 
between playing and coaching a gven sport, it would not be assumed that every extraordinary ability athlete's 
area of expertise includes coaching. Therefore the director requested, inter alia, evidence of the alien's receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in coaching. 
In response to the request for evidence, counsel acknowledged that the petitioner understood that "extraordinary 
ability in the field of athletics will be considered when an extraordinary applies as a coach, provided that acclaim 
as a coach at a national level. . . can be demonstrated." The petitioner submitted the following evidence in support 
of its claim that the beneficiary has coached "teams of national caliber": 
University, who stated that the beneficiary attended Clemson University on a full athletic 
scholarship, and assisted with the management and coaching of the tea 
 aptain for a 
team that achieved prominence as one of the best in the United States. ilmB stated that 
the beneficiary remained at Clemson after graduation to serve as assistant coach and was 
subsequently recruited by Cornell Universi 
 istant tennis coach. 
A letter dated January 25, 2007 from 
 Assistant Athletics Director for 
Compliance Services at Clemson University, who confirms that the beneficiary successfully 
completed the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) Coaches' Certification 
examination on December 15, 2005. indicated that only certified coaches may 
contact or evaluate prospective student athletes off campus. 
A letter dated January 11, 2007 from, National Player Development Coach with 
the U.S. Tennis Association (USTA). -provided a summary of the beneficiary's career 
as a competitive tennis player, and stated that "as a coach, [the beneficiary] is an outstanding 
teacher who shares her knowledge of tennis with her students in a way that motivates them to 
improve." He stated that the beneficiary demonstrated her coaching abilities worlung with well- 
respected teams at Clemson and Cornell Universities. 
A letter dated January 10, 2007 from 
 a tennis coach with the petitioning 
company who states that she has worked with the beneficiary for the past year. 1 
describes the beneficiary as an "excellent coach" who has an advantage in the coaching field 
because of her own success as an athlete, therefore malung it "easier for her to develop an elite 
tennis player." 
A letter dated January 12,2007 from , who states that she has known the applicant as 
a tennis player and coach for five years, and that the beneficiary "has what it takes to be a great 
coach." She stated that she and the applicant "worked together teaching tennis players of all ages 
WAC 07 055 52449 
Page 7 
tennis slulls, preparing players for tournament play, and planning practices and demonstrating 
slulls and techniques to players." She indicated that the beneficiary assisted in coaching a 
Romanian Tennis Federation junior team at a tournament in Florida, which included one 
tournament wi e finalist. 
A letter from 
 Tennis Pro/Director with the One & Only Ocean Club in Nassau, 
Bahamas, who stated that he has seen the beneficiary's coaching techniques and slulls as a coach 
and referred to her as "one of the tennis world's finest u -and-coming coaches." 
A letter dated January 16, 2007 from 
 a professional tennis player ranked #46 
in the Netherlands, who previously compete 
 iary on the ITF junior circuit and 
played with her at Clemson University. 
 described the beneficiary as an 
"incredible mentor," who assisted her with her tennis development as a doubles player while at 
Clemson University. She indicated that what she learned from the beneficiary has been 
beneficial to her career, and that beneficiary continues to play a substantial role in guiding her 
career. She stated that the beneficiary demonstrates "extraordinary ability" as a player and coach, 
and that the two capacities are often intertwined with one another. 
With respect to the director's request for evidence related to the beneficiary's achevements as a tennis coach, 
counsel now states on appeal that the beneficiary's field is "tennis" and the director's insistence on making a "fine 
distinction" between the beneficiary's achievements as a player and coach in the sport is artificial and not 
supported by the statute or regulations. Counsel asserts "the attempt to distinguish between competitor and coach 
is invoked as a rationale for discounting [the beneficiary's] standing in her field." Counsel contends that the 
beneficiary's standing at the very top of the field as an internationally recognized tennis champion is self-evident. 
Counsel further submits that the director's decision "has gone out of its way to discount the beneficiary's coaching 
work at a national level.'' 
As noted above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(l) requires the beneficiary to "continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability." While a competitive tennis player and a tennis coach share knowledge of 
tennis, the two rely on different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive tennis and tennis coaching and 
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 
working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any 
profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not 
imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball 
industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Id. at 918. 
The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary does in 
 ional level. In support of this claim, the 
a letter dated March 2, 2007 from 
 , the petitioner's executive director of 
states that the beneficiary, as a student practical trainee, the beneficiary has been appointed 
"Assistant Director of Player Development" for the petitioner's Long Island, New York training centers. Mr. 
WAC 07 055 52449 
Page 8 
states that the beneficiary has worked with some of the top junior players in the United States. He 
indicates that the etitioner's centers have over 100 nationally ranked junior players, 15 of which are in the top 50 
in the country. does not identify which individual players the beneficiary has personally coached or 
provide evidence that such players nationally or internationally recognized awards. Again, going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Upon review, the record contains no evidence that the beneficiary has won national or internationally recognized 
awards as a tennis coach or instructor, or 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 
tennis excellence. Rather, the letters submitted demonstrate that the beneficiary shows promise as an instructor 
and is just begnning in the field. Therefore, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the 
beneficiary has not met the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(l) as a tennis coach or instructor. 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(ii), 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 regard, the petitioner emphasized that the beneficiary has participated 
in her home country's teams as a representative of the country at various international events. 
Several of the recommendation letters note the beneficiary's participation on the Barbados Federation Cup team, 
but do not provide any probative details to show that the beneficiary's membership required outstanding 
achievements, as judged by national or international tennis experts. As discussed in the preceding section, the 
record also shows that the beneficiary represented Barbados as a national player at the Federation Cup, Centml 
American and Caribbean Games and Pan American Games, and as a junior player at the World Youth Games, the 
orange Bowl and the NEC Youth Cup in Jamaica in 1996. Finally the record shows that the beneficiary was a 
member of "specially selected International Tennis Federation Touring teams for Europe in 2000 and South 
America from 1996-2000." The beneficiary's memberships as a representative of her home country appear to 
have occurred six or more years before the petition was filed was filed and so not demonstrate the requisite 
sustained acclaim. There is no evidence in the record regarding the ITF's membership eli~bility criteria or 
evidence that ITF requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international tennis experts. The record also contains no persuasive evidence that the beneficiary has instructed or 
coached any athletes who have gained memberships that satisfy this criterion. Accordingly, the beneficiary does 
not meet this criterion. 
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. 
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 submitted a total 
of sixteen articles dated between April 1992 and August 1998, the majority of which were printed in The 
Barbados Advocate, and all of which referenced the beneficiary's achievements as a junior tennis player on a 
WAC 07 055 52449 
Page 9 
national and international level. As the most recent article regarding the beneficiary was dated more than seven 
years prior to the filing of the petition, this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Furthermore, none of the articles submitted addressed the beneficiary's accomplishments as an instructor, trainer, 
coach or assistant coach. The evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary meets this criteria as either 
a player or coach. 
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. The record contains no evidence that the beneficiary has participated on a panel, or 
individually, as a judge of any tennis competitions or other tennis events. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not 
meet ths criterion. 
The fifth criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of the beneficiary's orignal scientific, scholarly, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 
As discussed above, the beneficiary has submitted numerous letters from tennis players, coaches and others who 
praise the beneficiary's accomplishments and slulls as a tennis player and coach, but none of their letters indicate 
that the beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance to her field. The petitioner does not 
claim that the beneficiary meets ths 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. 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
The petitioner does claim that the beneficiary meets the seventh criterion in that she has been employed in a 
critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Specifically, counsel emphasizes that the beneficiary served as captain and assistant coach of the number three 
ranked collegiate tennis team in the United States and that she was the assistant tennis coach at Cornell 
University, a leading institution which competes at a national level. Counsel disagrees with the director's 
determination that "such staff or assistant positions are not considered employment in a 'critical or essential 
capacity."' 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's determination. The beneficiary's role as captain of her 
collegiate team can not be considered "employment" for the purposes of establishing that she meets this criterion. 
The petitioner has provided evidence that the beneficiary served as an assistant tennis coach for Cornell 
University for a period of three months in 2006. The petitioner has not provided the dates of the beneficiary's 
purported employment as an assistant tennis coach with Clemson University, although of 
Clemson University indicated that the beneficiary, after graduating, "stayed on at Clemson as [Assistant] Coach," 
prior to worlung for Cornell University. Given that the beneficiary was certified as an NCAA coach on December 
15, 2005 and she was hired by Cornell University on January 24, 2006, it is reasonable to conclude that her 
coaching tenure at Clemson would have been no longer than approximately six weeks. While the AAO 
recognizes the national reputation of these universities in the field of athletics, the record does not establish that 
WAC 07 055 52449 
Page 10 
the beneficiary's short-term employment in an assistant coaching role rises to the level of a critical or essential 
capacity with either institution. 
The eighth and final criterion requires the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary has either commanded a high 
salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
The record does not document the beneficiary's previous or current salaries or remunerations, nor has the 
petitioner submitted an employment contract agreement for the offered position. The petitioner indicates that it 
intends to compensate the beneficiary at a rate of $30.00 per hour or $62,400 annually. The petitioner provided 
an excerpt from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center's Online Wage Library 
(http://www.flcdatacenter.com) showing that the average annual salary for athletic coaches and scouts in the 
petitioner's geographical region as of the date of filing was between $17,000 and $43,040. While the beneficiary's 
offered salary is higher than the average for "coaches" in general, it cannot be concluded based on the evidence 
submitted that it is substantially higher than that paid to other tennis instructors worlung for private health and 
tennis clubs in the petitioner's geographcal region, or other similarly-employed tennis instructors worlang for the 
petitioner's facilities. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary has extraordinary ability in athletics, whch has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 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. fj 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). Consequently, the beneficiary is not eligble for nonimmigrant classification under 
section 101 (a)(15)(0) of the Act and the petition must be denied. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of ths visa classification are intended to be hghly 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. 9 214.2(0)(3)(ii). The 
beneficiary's achievements have not yet risen to ths level. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.