dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

l*~tifYbg data &lew to 
prevent clearly unw- 
FILE: EAC 05 064 529 17 Office: V 
'ERMONT S 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
,ERVICE CENTER 
 Date:JUN 1 2 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
- 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101 (a)(15)(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 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 05 064 52917 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimrnigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center, and is now 
before the Administrative Appeals OEce (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a tennis and fitness club. The beneficiary is a 28-year old citizen of Croatia. The petitioner seeks 
0-1 classification of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics under section 
lOl(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), in order to 
employ him in the United States as a tennis professional/coach for a period of three years at an annual salary of 
$52,000. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has received 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very top of his 
field of endeavor. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submits a brief and additional documentation. 
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 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. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part, that: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in thejelds of science, education, 
business, or athletics. 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 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 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; 
EAC 05 064 52917 
Page 3 
(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 been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) 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. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) erred in denying the petition as the 
petitioner has submitted overwhelming evidence of the beneficiary's qualification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. Counsel asserts that "[Ilf one played professional tennis successfully, one can definitely coach and 
teach professional players on their level." Counsel cites two examples of tennis players who have success~lly 
coached players who have ranked competitively by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP). 
Nonetheless, while a tennis competitor and a coach certainly share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on 
very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching 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 91 8. The court noted a consistent history in this area. Nevertheless, this office has recognized that there 
exists a nexus between playing and coaching a given sport. To assume that every extraordinary athlete's area 
of expertise includes coaching, however, would be too speculative. To resolve this issue, the following 
balance is appropriate. In a case where an alien has clearly achieved national or international acclaim as an 
EAC 05 064 52917 
Page 4 
athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at a national level, we can consider the totality 
of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that we 
can conclude that coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. Specifically, in such a case, we will 
consider the level at which the alien acts as coach. A coach who has an established successful history of 
coachng athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible claim; a coach of novices does 
not. Thus, we will examine whether the petitioner has demonstrated the beneficiary's extraordinary ability as 
a coach or as an athlete. If the beneficiary has demonstrated extraordinary ability as an athlete, we will 
consider the level at which he has successfully coached. 
After a careful review of the record, it must be concluded that the petitioner has failed to overcome the 
grounds for denial of the petition. The record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary is an alien with 
extraordinary ability in athletics. 
First, there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received an award equivalent to that listed at 8 C.F.R. fj 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A). Nor is the record persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary met at least three of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner has submitted evidence that it alleges meets the following 
criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. 
I who stated that the beneficiary was named "Coach of the Year" in 
Tennis Association and the State Coaches Association. However, the petitioner submitted 
no corroborative evidence with the petition or in response to the director's request for evidence (WE) dated 
January 12, 2005, reflecting that the beneficiary received this award. 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. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petitioner also submitted a letter fiom the president of the Tennis Club 
"Olimpija" Osijek, who stated that the beneficiary was recognized as the "Tennis Club Olimpija" Osijek and 
"Sports Society Olimpija" Osijek "Coach and Player of the Year 2002." The petitioner submitted no primary 
evidence with the petition or in response to the RFE to corroborate the beneficiary's receipt of this award and 
submitted no evidence to establish that recognition as coach of the year by the Tennis Club "Olimpija" Osijek, or 
the "Sports Society Olimpija" Osijek are nationally or internationally recognized awards of excellence in tennis. 
Id. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted an April 13,2005 letter fiom the secretary of the Croatian Tennis Association, 
verifying that recognition as the "Coach and Player of the Year" by the Tennis Club "Olimpija" Osijec and 
awarded to the beneficiary in 2002 is "nationally recognized by [the] Croatian Tennis Association the governing 
institution for tennis sport in Croatia." 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
EAC 05 064 52917 
Page 5 
The evidence is sufficient to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classijication is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines or fields. 
Counsel stated that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on his membership in the United States Tennis 
Association, the Croatian Tennis Professionals Coaches Association and of Tennis Coaches Croatia. The 
petitioner submitted a December 6, 2004 letter from the Croatian Tennis Association reporting the beneficiary's 
"sport results;" however, it submitted no primary evidence of the beneficiary's membership in these associations. 
Further, the petitioner submitted no evidence of the membership criteria, and no evidence to reflect that 
membership in the named associations requires outstanding achievements as a condition of membership. Without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533,534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503, 506 (BIA 1980). Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the alien, relating to the 
alien's work in the field for which classijication is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such 
published material, and any necessary translation. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted a copy of a document entitled "ATP Tour Singles Rankings" for July 
22, 1996; documents identified by counsel as tournament draw sheets; a copy of a 1995 advertisement, apparently 
for a tennis racket, in which the beneficiary appeared; and copies of photographs that the petitioner indicates are 
of the beneficiary, but that does not indicate that they were published with articles about the beneficiary or his 
work. 
any of these publications are professional or major trade publications or are major media. 
The petitioner's evidence does not establish that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Counsel states that the beneficiary also qualifies for the visa classification based on "comparable evidence" as 
permitted by 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(C), which states that if the criteria in paragraph 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii) 
do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. The petitioner submitted letters from tennis coaches, professionals, and 
players who attest to the beneficiary's acco 
 ennis coach. Many of the letters are identical, and 
indicate that the beneficiary "worked with 
 top 100 WTA World Tour ranked lady," 
EAC 05 064 5291 7 
Page 6 
"who won 1999 Junior National Championships Boys 16 and under division," "coached 
Junior National Championships 
 division in 2003 and represented 
opean Team Junior Cup same year," and "coached 
 who was ranked in the top 20 ITF 
Junior World Rankings in 2002." 
stated in an undated letter, that the beneficiary 'privately coached" his son 
and that his son won the 2003 Croatian National Junior Championships for boys 18 and under 
stated that the beneficiary coached him from 1999 to 2001, and that during that time he won the National Junior 
Tennis Championshi s for boys 16 and under, and that he was a runner-up at the World Team Junior Tennis 
Championshie states that the beneficiary has coached him since 2001, and that he was ranked in the 
top 20 by the ennis Association in 2002, and has "won many national and international junior tennis 
tournaments. " 
The petitioner, however, has not established that the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii) do not readily apply 
to the beneficiary's occupation. Therefore, the comparable evidence provision of the regulation is inapplicable. 
While the letters attesting to the beneficiary's skills as a tennis coach would bolster other evidence of 
extraordinary ability, the record contains no firsthand evidence of achievements by players that the beneficiary 
has coached. Ths evidence is insufficient, without more, to establish eligibility for this restrictive visa 
classification, which requires extensive documentation of extraordinary achievement. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. 5 136 1. Here, that burden has 
not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.