dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 09 059 50828 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 1 4 2010 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(1 S)(O)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking 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 petitioner states that it is a provider of professional tennis services and 
instruction. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a professional tennis coach/instructor for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim in her field or that she is one of the small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of her field of endeavor. The director found that the evidence submitted failed to satisfy the criterion 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A) or three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
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, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider 
relevant evidence submitted in response to a request for evidence, erroneously disregarded the opinion of a 
professional organization in the beneficiary's field, and ignored the exert opinion of a tenured professor in the 
beneficiary's field of endeavor. Counsel contends that the petitioner submitted evidence to satisfy the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(I), (2), (3), and (8). 
For the reasons discussed below, our assessment of the evidentiary criteria as well as the merits evaluation of 
the evidence submitted, which addresses the significance of the evidence submitted under the necessary three 
criteria, leads us to conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated the necessary national or international 
acclaim as a tennis coach or instructor. 
I. The Law 
Section 10 l(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). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinav 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: 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 3 
Evidentiay criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinay 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 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 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 command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other 
reliable evidence. 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 4 
(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 mere fact that the petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the 
regulation does not necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg 41818, 
41 820 (August 15, 1994). In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a 
two-part approach recently set forth in a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 20 10 WL 7253 17 (9th Cir. March 4, 20 10). Similar to the regulations governing this 
nonimmigrant classification, the regulations reviewed by the Kmarian court require the petitioner to submit 
evidence pertaining to at least three out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as 
an alien with extraordinary ability. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, 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 (as the AAO concluded). " Id at *6 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2), 
and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens 
whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for 
an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *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 determination. 
The AAO finds the Kazarian court's two part approach applicable to evaluating the regulatory criteria set forth for 
0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability or achievement at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii), (iv) 
and (v), and to other immigrant and nonimmigrant classifications based on a similar evidentiary framework.' 
I For example, the Kazarian court's two-part approach would be applicable to outstanding professors and 
researchers, where the petitioner must: (1) submit evidence meeting at least two out of the six criteria outlined 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i); and (2) demonstrate that the professor or researcher is recognized internationally 
as outstanding. This approach would also be applicable to petitions for P-1 classification athletes and 
entertainment groups, where the petitioner must: (1) submit evidence meeting at least two of the seven criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(p)(4)(ii)(B)(2) or three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(~)(4)(iii)(B)(3), respectively; 
and (2) demonstrate that the individual beneficiary has achieved international recognition in his sport based 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 5 
Therefore, in reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO 
maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by 
using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Soltane v. DOJ, 
3 8 1 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to four of the evidentiary criteria, but has 
not established that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of her field or that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. $9 214.2(0)(3)(ii) and (iii). 
11. Analysis 
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 brief, and additional evidence supporting the appeal. The 
beneficiary in this case is a 25-year-old native and citizen of Lithuania. The record shows that the beneficiary 
competed successfully in national and international competitions as a tennis player in Lithuania between 1993 
and 1996 and between 2001 and 2003. She has competed in the United States at the collegiate level between 
2004 and 2007. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability as a professional tennis 
coach/instructor. With respect to the beneficiary's coaching career, the petitioner submitted evidence that, in 
2008, the beneficiary became a member of the Professional Tennis Registry, which has granted her the rating 
of "Professional." The petitioner states that the beneficiary served as a tennis coach at a Lithuanian tennis 
school from 2001 until 2003, as an assistant coach at a tennis camp during the summers of 2004 and 2006, 
and, since 2007, as a professional tennis coach with the City of Pompano Beach Tennis Club. 
In denying the petition, the director acknowledged that the beneficiary enjoyed a successful junior and 
collegiate career as a tennis player, but found that the beneficiary's achievements at those levels are 
insufficient to establish that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the sport. The 
director concluded that the evidence failed to meet any of the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii). 
The director did not indicate whether he reviewed the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification as an alien 
with extraordinary ability as a tennis coach. 
The AAO notes that the evidence in the record pertains almost entirely to the beneficiary's achievements as a 
competitive tennis player. 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. $ 
1 10 1 (a)(l5)(0)(i) (2007). While a tennis competitor and an instructor certainly share knowledge of the sport, 
the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and tennis 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: 
on his reputation or that the entertainment group has been recognized as outstanding in the discipline for a 
sustained and substantial period of time. 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 6 
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 court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the beneficiary intends to continue to compete in the United States in her role as a 
professional tennis coach/instructor for the petitioner. 
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. While the petitioner's 
competitive accomplishments as a tennis player are not completely irrelevant and will be given some 
consideration, ultimately she must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii) through her 
achievements as a coach. 
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. 
Upon review of the director's decision, there is no indication that he considered the beneficiary's coaching 
career in determining whether she is eligible for 0-1 classification. The AAO conducts appellate review on a 
de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). As such, the AAO will review all 
evidence submitted to determine whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary is an alien with 
extraordinary ability in athletics as a tennis coach/instructor. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
At the outset, it is critical to note that simply submitting evidence to satisfy the evidentiary criteria will not 
automatically establish eligibility for this visa classification. The mere fact that the petitioner has submitted 
evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not necessarily establish that the 
alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg. 4181 8,41820 (August 15, 1994). 
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. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its burden of 
proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The petitioner does not claim that the 
beneficiary qualifies for 0- 1 classification on the basis of her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. 
Accordingly, 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(0)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 7 
$5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(I), (2), (3), and (8), and submits documentation relevant to these criteria only. As such, the 
remaining four criteria will not be addressed in this decision. 
1. Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
To meet criterion number one, the petitioner must submit 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. 
5 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(I). 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has won awards as a tennis player at the national collegiate 
level in the United States, including: NCAA Division I1 Women's Tennis Championships Semifinalist (2006 and 
2007); National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) Women's Tennis National Champion (2004 and 
2005); and National Small College Championship Women's Doubles Finalist (2004). 
In her home country of Lithuania, the beneficiary received a bronze medal in the 2002 Lithuanian National 
Olympics. Between the years 1992 and 1998, the beneficiary consistently won the Lithuanian Junior Tennis 
Champion titles in her age group. The beneficiary was also Baltic States Junior Champion between the years 
1993 and 1997, and achieved 5th and 2nd place finishes in an Eastern European Junior National Championship. 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the beneficiary's two NAIA championships, bronze medal in the Lithuanian 
National Olympics, and national champion titles qualify as nationally-recognized awards. 
However, these achievements resulted from the beneficiary's accomplishments as a tennis player and cannot be 
considered evidence of her national or international acclaim as a coach. As discussed above, while recognition 
and achievements earned by the beneficiary as a tennis player is not completely irrelevant and will be given 
some consideration, ultimately she must satisfy the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii) through 
her achievements as a coach. Accordingly, the petitioner's awards and competitive results demonstrating her 
past record of success as a tennis player alone cannot serve to meet this regulatory criterion. 
There is scant evidence in the record regarding the beneficiary's coaching experience, and no evidence that 
she has received a nationally or internationally recognized award for her achievements as a tennis coach. The 
petitioner's claims regarding the beneficiary's coaching career consist of the following: 
[The beneficiary] has professional experience as well, having served as Tennis Coach from 
2001 through 2003 with the Siauliai Tennis School in Lithuania; Assistant Coach at Furman 
Tennis Camp in South Carolina during Summer of 2004 and 2006; and Professional Tennis 
Coach since 2007 with the City of Pompano Beach Tennis Club. 
Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by tennis players coached primarily by the 
petitioner can be considered for this criterion. However, the petitioner has not identified any tennis players 
who have been coached by the beneficiary or provided evidence that such players are competitive at the 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 8 
national or international levels, much less provided evidence that she has coached athletes who have achieved 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
The petitioner failed to submit any documentation reflecting that the beneficiary, in her capacity as a coach, or 
any of her players whom she has coached, has received any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence. Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion as a tennis coach 
or instructor. 
2. Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the fieEd for which classz$cation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. 
The petitioner claims that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on her membership in the Professional Tennis 
Registry (PTR). In this regard, the petitioner submits: 
1. The beneficiary's PTR membership card; 
2. A certificate from PTR reflecting that the beneficiary "has completed all tests and 
examinations and qualifies for PTR certification of professional" and is a member in 
good standing from August 2008 until August 2009; 
3. The beneficiary's PTR certification test results, showing that the beneficiary tested 
for certification on November 3, 2008 and achieved the rating of "professional" on 
her written test, skills test, teaching test, error detection test and drill test, for an 
overall rating of "professional"; 
4. PTR Press Release announcing that the certification of the petitioner as a professional; 
5. Letter dated November 11, 2008 from PTR's Director of Development, thanking the 
beneficiary for attending the PTR International Certification Workshop; 
According to the press release, PTR is the largest global organization of tennis teaching professionals with 13,300 
members worldwide. The press release describes the organization's certification requirements as follows: 
A comprehensive five-part examination focusing on the fundamentals of teaching group lessons, 
the development of biomechanically sound strokes, error detection and corrective techniques, 
and the logistics of organizing group drills is used to determine each member's rating. The 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 9 
written and on-court examination was administered by PTR on teaching and playing skills to 
determine a certification rating. [The beneficiary] received the Professional rating. 
states that the beneficiiuy attended the PTR Tennis Teaching Essentials Course, and passed all 
examinations administered by PTR in order to receive her "Professional" certification. He further states that the 
beneficiary's "certification in this regard demonstrates that she meets the standard of distinction set forth at 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A)(l) and in our opinion is an outstanding tennis coach, teacher and player with 
extraordinary ability and talent who has risen to the top of her field." Also, he notes that PTR is recognized by 
professional athletes and organizations around the world and is recognized by the Association of Tennis 
Professionals (ATP), the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) and the International Tennis Federation (ITF). 
states the following with regard to the beneficiary's PTR membership: 
To become a member of the Professional Tennis Registry, one has to pass a series of rigorous 
tests in order to receive membership. A candidate's membership level is decided upon on the 
skill level they achieve in their examinations. What is unique about the Professional Tennis 
Registry is that membership is based on an athletic try-out. Potential members are put through a 
series of examinations that test their knowledge and athletic capabilities. The Professional Tennis 
Registry is not only testing athleticism, but also the mental aptitude that someone possesses 
about tennis. This knowledge can only be obtained by someone with an illustrious career in 
tennis. [The beneficiary] testing into the Professional ranking scoring in the 96% percentile. This 
is a tremendous honor as this is the second highest level someone can obtain. 
The director determined that evidence of the beneficiary's PTR certification is insufficient to meet this criterion, 
noting that "membership in the PTR is obtained after taking various courses and passing certain exams," and that 
there is no requirement for outstanding achievements by the beneficiary in the field." 
On appeal, counsel contends that the director ignored the opinions of 
 and 
 in finding 
that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on her PTR certification and 
membership. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's determination. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the 
association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, 
standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of 
dues do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the 
overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than 
the association's overall reputation. 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 10 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(2) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields." The record does not include any independent evidence of the membership and certification requirements 
(such as bylaws or rules of admission) for the PTR. However, the requirements listed above for membership and 
certification with PRT, which includes passing qualifying exams, are not outstanding achievements. Other than 
meeting the minimum qualifying standards for the rating sought on the testing day, outstanding achievement is 
not a prerequisite for certification by and membership in PRT. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to establish 
how PRT's membership requirements reflect outstanding achievement as judged by national or international 
experts in the field as an essential condition for admission to PRT. 
Thus, while and statements establish that achievement of a "professional" rating is 
an impressive accomplishment not obtained by all who attempt the PTR's qualifying test, it appears that the rating is 
more an indication of athletic ability and teaching aptitude than the result of any outstanding achievement or 
recognition in the sport of tennis or in the field of tennis instruction. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to submit evidence that satisfies this criterion. 
3. Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media abut the alien, relating 
to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought 
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. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The petitioner submitted many articles relating to the petitioner's participation as a player in various 
tournaments. Some of the submitted articles were published in the Lithuanian newspapers Siauliu Krastas, 
Siauliu Naujenos, Lietuvos Rytas, Respublika and accompanied by summary English translations. Many of the 
articles submitted do not include the title of the publication, as required by the regulation. The majority of the 
articles are dated between 1993 and 1996, although the beneficiary's medal at the Lithuanian National 
Olympics Tennis Tournament was mentioned in a 2002 article. With respect to the beneficiary's media 
recognition in the United States, the petitioner submitted excerpts from the web site of Lynn University's 
Athletics Department, which show that the beneficiary was recognized on three occasions as an "Athlete of 
the Week" during her final two years of college. 
To qualify as major media, a publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien 
would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 11 
Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
The AAO acknowledges statement that "the overwhelming amount of articles written about 
[the beneficiary] signifies her extraordinary talent and composure over the course of a career," and that the 
beneficiary "has proven this athletic capability by her exposure in major national media outlets." However, 
he refers to the publications simply as "newspapers in Lithuania," and it is unclear on what basis he 
determined that the articles constitute major media coverage. The AAO is unable to conclude, based on the 
evidence submitted, that the articles submitted were published in "major national media outlets" or that they 
otherwise constitute "major media," as opposed to local or regional sports media coverage. The beneficiary's 
recognition on her university's web site clearly does not qualify as "major media." 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible 
for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission 
of letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content of the 
writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even 
when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of 
less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of achievements that one would expect of a tennis coach 
who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the 
petitioner's coaching achievements have been recognized by major media or professional or trade 
publications, we cannot find that she meets this criterion. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3) requires published 
material "relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." In this case, the articles 
submitted by the petitioner relate to her competing in tennis tournaments as a player and not her 
accomplishments in her current field of coaching. The petitioner has not submitted any publications or other 
major media about the beneficiary's accomplishments as a tennis coach, or regarding the accomplishments of 
the beneficiary's students. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to submit evidence that satisfies this criterion. 
4. 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 
The petitioner states for the first time on appeal that the beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
ij 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(8), which requires the petitioner to submit evidence that the beneficiary has either 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 12 
commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by 
contracts or other reliable evidence. 
The petitioner states on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary will be compensated at a wage of $27.00 per hour. The 
petitioner indicated in its letter dated November 15, 2008 that the beneficiary will work on average 35 hours per 
week. Although the petitioner submitted a copy of its employment agreement with the beneficiary, the agreement 
does not clearly state the amount of compensation the beneficiary will receive. The agreement states: "During the 
Term of Employment, the Employee shall be entitled to an annual base salary equal to at least the annual salary of 
Employee on the effective date hereof, payable in equal bi-weekly installments by the Employer." Prior to the 
adjudication of the petition, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence as to what constitutes a 
typical or average salary for a tennis coach that could have been used by the director for comparative purposes. 
On appeal, counsel contends that the director failed to address this criterion in the RFE, and states that the 
petitioner would have been afforded the opportunity "to provide the Director with information gleaned from the 
U.S. Department of Labor's findings that at the highest level (that is level 4), Coaches and Scouts in the Fort 
Lauderdale, Pompano Beach area, earn $38,760 per year." Counsel states that the beneficiary would earn an 
annual salary of $57,060, "a substantial amount more than even the highest paid coach in the area." 
In support of these assertions, the petition submits a print out of results for the occupation of "Coaches and 
Scouts" in the Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach area obtained from the U.S. Department of 
Labor's Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Online Wage Library. The wages are for the period from July 2008 
through June 2009. 
The AAO notes that the director did in fact list all eight evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 214.2(1)(3)(iii)(B) in the RFE, and instructed the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three of the 
criteria. The petitioner had an opportunity to submit relevant evidence pertaining to this criteria prior to the 
adjudication of the petition. 
Nevertheless, based on the evidence submitted, the AAO finds that the beneficiary's proffered annual wages 
would be $49,140 based on the petitioner's statements that the beneficiary will work on average 35 hours per 
week. While this wage offered is higher than the Level 4 wage for experienced coaches in the geographic 
location of the proposed employment, the AAO is not persuaded that the offered wage is high among all tennis 
c~aches.~ There is no evidence establishing that the beneficiary has earned or will earn a level of 
compensation that places her among the highest paid coaches in tennis. 
The AAO notes that for the FLC data for the year July 2009 to June 2010 lists the Level 4 annual wage for 
Coaches and Scouts in the Fort Lauderdale metropolitan area as $54,500, which exceeds the salary offered to 
the beneficiary. 
See http::Nflcdatacenter.comlOesQuickResults.aspx?area=22744&code=27-2022.OO&year=1 O&source=l 
(accessed on May 5,2010). 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 13 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of 
the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) that the beneficiary has achieved 
a level of expertise indicating that she is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii); and (2) that the beneficiary has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 14.2(0)(3)(iii) and section 10 l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(15)(O)(i). See Kazarian, 20 10 WL 
725317 at '3. In this case, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
While the petitioner submitted documentation that reflects the beneficiary's receipt of nationally recognized 
awards as a tennis player, the evidence submitted does not satisfy any of the evidentiary criteria with respect to 
the beneficiary's career as a tennis coach or instructor. Even with respect to her achievements as a competitive 
tennis player, while the beneficiary has had a highly successful career primarily at the junior and collegiate 
level, we are not persuaded that the beneficiary's achievements at these levels of competition would lead to a 
conclusion that the beneficiary "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major 
league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ 
Furthermore, as noted above, the majority of the evidence in the record pertains to the beneficiary's 
achievements as a competitive tennis player, not as a tennis coach or instructor. The statute requires that the 
beneficiary seek entry into the United States "to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." Section 
lOl(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). The beneficiary intends to work in the area of 
tennis coaching/instruction; however, the petitioner has devoted exactly one brief paragraph to describing her 
professional coaching experience. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will not assume that 
4 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of 
Racine, 1995 WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, 
Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent 
with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 
1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) is reasonable. 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 14 
an alien with extraordinary ability as an athlete has the same level of expertise as a coach or instructor of his 
or her sport. As discussed, the petitioner's competitive accomplishments as a tennis player are not completely 
irrelevant and will be given some consideration, but, ultimately, she must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
4 214.2(0)(3)(iii) through her achievements as a coach. Such achievements have not been documented. The 
minimal evidence in the record does not establish that the beneficiary has coached students who compete 
successfully at the national or international level of the sport, or at any professional level, and there is no basis 
for the AAO to conclude that the beneficiary is one of the small percentage of individuals who are recognized 
as having risen to the very top of the tennis coaching field. 
The AAO acknowledges opinion that "it is immediately evident from the large number of 
accomplishments and her certification as a tennis 'Professional' that [the beneficiary] qualifies as an alien of 
extraordinary ability (0-1) as a professional tennis instructor." However, he fails to address any of the 
beneficiary's accomplishments as a coach or instructor beyond her recent receipt of the PTR "Professional" 
certification. Rather, it is evident that he considers the beneficiary's field to be "tennis" without distinguishing 
between her career as an athlete and her career as a coach or instructor. Again, USCIS may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 
795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. USCIS may evaluate the content of submitted letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. The content of the writers' statements and how 
they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. statements do 
not reflect that he is aware of any national or international recognition the beneficiary has achieved as a tennis 
coach or instructor beyond the PTR certification, and, for the reasons discussed, the beneficiary's ratings on 
the PTR certification test alone are insufficient to establish her extraordinary ability as a tennis coach. While 
reference letters can provide useful information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to 
certain evidence, such letters are not comparable to extensive evidence of the alien's achievements and 
recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The record is devoid of primary evidence of the 
beneficiary's achievements and recognition as a tennis coach or instructor. The nonexistence of required evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
Finally, we cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive documentation" of sustained 
national or international acclaim. See section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Act. The petitioner failed to submit evidence 
pertaining to the beneficiary's coaching career demonstrating that the beneficiary "is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field." 
Therefore, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the 
petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The extraordinary 
ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 
(daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must 
clearly demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
111. Conclusion 
EAC 09 059 50828 
Page 15 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
An application or petition that fails to conlply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001). The AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltune v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
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 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.