dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

Date: OCT 1 5 2012 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washin&.on, DC 2054,9-2090 
U.S. citizenShip 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10 I (a)(lS)(O)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 V.S.c. § llOl(a)(IS)(O)(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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Porm I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § IOJ.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
rI";' ',' 
~ . ,. 
'- 1,;..o.t..,."!l.:.:~_.~, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
\ 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and it is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to 
section 100(a)(IS)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner, a tennis academy, seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
tennis coach for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition on February 6, 2012, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the 
evidentiary criteria for classification of the beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics, 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). Specifically, director found that the petitioner failed to satisfy the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), and submitted evidence which failed to satisfy any of the 
eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 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 provides the 
following statement on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion: 
Petitioner clearly established that the beneficiary is a tennis coach of extraordinary 
abilities. Proof was presented that benefici~ieved the very to~ 
- ranked 48 in_ world rankings __ 
300 in the world on men's professional tour. At 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii) were satisfied - membership in 
associations, awards, and materials in media. Also, there's an employment 
agreement in place between petitioner and beneficiary. Brief and attachments will 
follow. 
Counsel for the petitioner stated on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal to the AAO, that additional 
documentation evidencing the beneficiary's qualifications would be provided within 30 days. 
Counsel has not filed a brief or evidence in support of the appeal. 
Section 10I(a)(l5)(O)(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 Congo 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 
his field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Page 3 
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 evidentiary criteria for aliens seeking classification as 0-1 aliens with extraordinary ability in 
the fields of science, education, business or athletics are set forth at 8 C,F.R § 214,2(0)(3)(iii). 
Specifically, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), or three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). If the 
criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(C). The 
evidence submitted must demonstrate that the beneficiary has earned sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the field. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
The issue on appeal is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary qualifies for 0-1 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the 
petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), and likewise 
failed to meet three of the eight evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B). 
Accordingly, on September 8, 2011, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE), requesting that 
the petitioner submit evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary has earned sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the field. In response to the RFE, the 
petitioner did not submit other evidence establishing the beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 
classification.! Accordingly, on February 6, 2012, the director denied the petition, finding the 
petitioner's evidence failed to satisfY any of the evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), (B), or (C).2 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner simply asserts that the beneficiary is qualified for 0-1 
classification, without addressing how the submitted evidence demonstrates the beneficiary's 
eligibility under the relevant regulatory evidentiary criteria. Neither the petitioner nor counsel have 
submitted any statement, either with the initial petition, in response to the RFE, or on appeal, 
addressing the evidentiary criteria, although the director specifically advised the petitioner in the 
RFE that it must explain the significance of the submitted documentary evidence. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
I The RFE also advised the petitioner that it must submit a consultation from the national office of an appropriate labor 
union or a consultation from an appropriate U.S. peer group. The director found that in response to the RFE the 
petitioner submitted an acceptable consultation from a peer group. 
2 The AAO notes that the director's decision contains an error near the bottom of page four: after listing the eight criteria 
required for this classification, the director erroneously stated that six criteria were required. This portion of the 
director's decision is withdrawn. 
Page 4 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when 
the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact for the appeal. 
A review of the decision reveals the director accurately set forth a legitimate basis for denial of the 
petition. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner does not identifY specifically an erroneous statement 
of fact or conclusion oflaw on the part of the director. Counsel's general objections to the denial of 
the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the director, do not address the 
grounds stated for denial of the petition, nor has the petitioner presented additional evidence relevant to 
the grounds for denial. The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not 
evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 
188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BrA 1980). Accordingly, the 
appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
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. § 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to 
identifY specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, the 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.