dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizen ship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachu setts Ave.,N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
OCT 2 5 2013 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101 (a)(lS)(O)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § llOl(a)(lS)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days . of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C .F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) initially approved the 
nonimmigrant visa petition . The Director, Vermont Service Center, subsequently issued a notice of intent to 
revoke, and upon review of the petitioner's response revoked approval of the petition. The matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner , a tennis club, filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary pursuant to 
section 101 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(l5)(0)(i), as an 
alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. It seeks to employ the beneficiary , a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, 
as a tennis coach for a period of three years. 
US CIS approved the petition on March 27, 2012, granting the beneficiary 0-l classification for a period of three 
years. On February 6, 2013, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval, advising the petitioner 
that, upon further review of the beneficiary's credentials, it does not appear that he is qualified for the benefit 
sought. The director revoked the approval of the petition on April 12, 2013, after reviewing the petitioner's 
response to the notice of intent to revoke. In revoking the approval, the director determined that the evidence 
submitted satisfied only one of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), of which three are 
required to establish eligibility. 
The petitioner subseq uently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary qualifies for 0-1 classification pursuant to the standards set 
forth at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii). Counsel submits a brief and evidence which has already been submitted into 
the record. 
I. The Law 
Section I 01 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(l5)(0)(i), provides for the classification of a qualifi ed 
alien who: 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrat ed by sustained national or international acclaim .. . and whose achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation , and seeks to enter the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability .. .. 
The regulation at 8 C.P .R.§ 214.2(o)(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 extraordinary ability provi sions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive for aliens in 
the fields of busines s, education, athletics, and the sciences. See 59 FR 41818,41819 (A ugust 15, 1994) ; 137 
Cong. Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and discu ssing the lower standard for the 
arts). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
In a policy memorandum , the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) emphasized: 
It must be remembered that the standards for 0-1 aliens in the fields of business, education, 
athletics , and the sc iences are extremely high . The 0-1 cla ssification should be reserved only for 
those aliens who have reached the very top of their occupation or profession . The 0-1 
classification is s ubstantially higher than the old H-1B prominent standard. Officers involved in 
the adjudicat io n of these petitions should not "water down" the cla ssific ation by approving 0-1 
petitions for prominent aliens. 
Memorandum, Lawrenc e Weinig, Acting Asst. Comm'r. , INS, "Policy Guid elines for the Adjudication of 0 
and P Petitions" (Jun e 25, 1992). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiar y c riteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in thefie lds 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 recog nized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following form s of documentation : 
(1) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prize s or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor ; 
(2) Docum entation of the alien's membership in association s in the field for which 
class ification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
memb ers, as judged by recogniz ed or international expert s in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(3) Publi shed mate1ial in profess ional or major trade publicat ions 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 individu ally as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classif ication is sought; 
(5) Evidenc e of the alien' s original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
co ntributions of major significance in the field; 
(b)(6)
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(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 . 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized expe1ts certifying to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expe1tise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence . 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 at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-patt approach set forth 
in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant classification, the regulations reviewed 
by the Kazarian 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. Cf 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the 
AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. The court concluded that while 
USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet two of the 
criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination. " ld at 1121-22 . 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper procedure is to 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
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)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(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 to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set 
forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) , (iv) and (v). 
Therefore, in reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001 ), a.ffd, 345 P.3d 683 (9th Cir. 
2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO conducts appellate 
review on a de novo basis). 
In this matter, the AAO has reviewed the evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion 
claimed. As the petitioner has failed to submit evidence that satisfies three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(B), the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of 
three types of evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(8)(i)(B) provides that the director may revoke a petition approval at any 
time, even after the validity of the petition has expired. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(o )(8)(iii) sets forth the 
grounds for revocation on notice : 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The Director shall send to the petitioner a notice of intent to 
revoke the petition in relevant pa1t if it is determined that: 
(1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity specified in 
the petition; 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition was not true and con·ect; 
(3) The petitioner violated the terms or conditions of the approved petition; 
(4) The petitioner violated the requirements of section 101(a)(l5)(0) of the Act or 
paragraph (o) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (o) of this section or involved gross 
error. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed statement of 
the grounds for revocation and the time period allowed for the petitioner's rebuttal. The 
petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 days of the date of the notice. The 
Director shall consider all relevant evidence presented in deciding whether to revoke the 
petition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
In the present matter, the director provided a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation but did not 
cite to the specific provision of the regulations as a basis for the revocation . Referring to the eligibility 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii), the director reviewed the rebuttal evidence and concluded that the 
petitioner had not established the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he 
meets at least three of the eight categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum 
eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability . Upon review , the director 
revoked the approval on the basis of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(8)(iii)(A)(5) : "The approval of the petition ... 
involved gross error." 
The term "gross error" is not defined by the regulations or statute. Furthermore, although the term has a 
juristic ring to it, "gross error" is not a commonly used legal term and has no basis in jurisprudence. See 
Black's Law Dictionary 562, 710 (7th Ed. 1999)(defining the types of legal "error" and legal terms using 
"gross" without citing "gross error"). The word "gross" is commonly defined first as "unmitigated in any 
way: UTTER," as in "gross negligence ." Webster's II New College Dictionary 491 (2001) . 
As the term "gross error" was created by regulation, it is most instructive to examine the comments that 
accompanied the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. The term "gross etTor" was first used in the 
regulations relating to the revocation of a nonimmigrant L-1 petition. In the 1986 proposed rule, an L-1 
revocation would be permitted if the approval had been "improvidently granted." 51 Fed. Reg. 18591, 18598 
(May 21, 1986)(Proposed Rule). After receiv,ng comments that expressed concern that the phrase 
"improvidently granted" might be given a broader interpretation than intended, the agency changed the final 
rule to use the phrase "gross enor." 52 Fed . Reg . 5738 , 5749 (Feb . 26, 1987)(Final Rule). 
Accordingly, upon review of the regulatory history and the common usage of the term, the AAO interprets the 
term "gross error" to be an unmitigated or absolute enor, such as an approval that was granted contrary to the 
requirements stated in the statute or regulations. Regardless of whether there can be debate as to the legal 
determination of eligibility, any approval that is granted contrary to law must be considered an unmitigated 
error, and therefore a "gross enor." This view of "gross error" is consistent with the example provided in the 
Federal Register. See 52 Fed. Reg. at 5749. 
Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, the present petition was properly revoked as USCIS clearly 
approved the petition in gross error, contrary to the eligibility requirements provided for in the regulations. 
II. Discussion 
A. Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability in the United States 
This petition, filed on March 12, 2012, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a tennis coach. The statute and regulations require that the beneficiary seek to continue work in his area of 
extraordinary ability in the United States. See section 10l(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ llOJ(a)(l5)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(i). In denying the petition, the director found that the record was 
insufficient to establish that the beneficiary satisfied the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C .F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). On appeal, counsel for the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
asserts that the petitioner established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. Counsel 
emphasizes the beneficiary's qualifications both as a tennis coach and as a competitive tennis player. 
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/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 statute requires that the beneficiary seek entry into the United States "to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability." Section 10l(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l10l(a)(15)(0)(i) (2007). 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 . 
Upon review and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is fully 
qualified as an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
B. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Regulatory Criteria 
The beneficiary in this matter is a native and citizen of Sri Lanka. The record of proceeding contains the 
Form I-129 , Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker and supporting documentation , the director's notice of intent 
to revoke, the petitioner's respon se to the notice of intent to revoke, the director's notice of revocation , and the 
petitioner's appeal. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(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 has received a major, internationally recognized award comparable to the Nobel prize as a competitor 
or coach , or that he has coached or trained athletes who have received major, internationally recognized awards or 
prizes . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the petitioner 
must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set fmth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
The decision of USCIS is dependent upon the quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the 
quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three or more of the 
criteria as required by the regulation does not necessarily establish that the alien satisfies the criteria and is 
eligible for 0-1 classification. The evidence submitted must establish that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. Here, the petitioner provided evidence related to seven of the eight criteria, set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6) and (7). The director determined that the evidence establishes 
that the beneficiary meets one of these criteria. These seven criteria will be discussed below. 
1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor . 
In order to meet criterion number one, the petitio11er 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. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(l) . The petitioner claims that the beneficiary is able to meet this criterion as both a competitive 
tennis player and as a coach of athletes who have received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards. 
With respect to the beneficiary's tennis career in 
tennis tournament results and awards in 
the petitioner submitted a list of the beneficiary's 
for the years 1992 through 1999, 2004 and 2005, for 
tournaments in which it appears he was a semi-finalist, finalist or champion , which included the following : 
• 1992- Runner-Up Team, 
Under 10 
• 1993- Runner Up, 
• 1994- Runner-Up Team, 
Under 12 
• 1994- Runner-Up , 
• 1995 -Semi-Finalist , 
• 1995 - Semi-Finalist, 
Under 14 
• 1996- Runner-Up, 
• 1996- Winner, 
• 1996- Winner , 
• 1996- Third Place, 
• 1997- Third Place, 
• 1997- Runner-up, 
oy's Doubles 
Singles 12 and Under 
Under 14 
Boy's Singles Under 14 
Doubles Under 16 
Singles 14 and Under 
Under 18 
Under 19 Tennis 
Under 19 Tennis 
1 The pet1t10ner raises no objection to the director's determination that the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8) has not been met. Therefore this regulatory category of evidence will not be 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
• 1997- Runner-up, 
• 1997 -Winner, 
• 1997 -Winner, 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Under 16 
Doubles Under 18 
Singles Under 18 
• 1998 - Letters and Certificates from the certifying the 
of number 5 in Men 's Open Singles and number 1 in beneficiary was awarded the ranking 
Boy 's 18 and under 
• 1998 -Runner-up, 
• 1998- Runner-up, 
• 1998- Runner-up, 
• 1998 -Runner -up, 
• 1998 -Winner, 
• 1998- Runner-up, 
• 1998- Semi Finalist, 
• 1998 -Winner , 
• 1998- Semi-Finalist, 
• 1998-
• 1999-
• 1999-
Single s 
Doubles 
Under 18 
Under 16 
Under 18 
Under 18 
Under 18 
Under 18 
Under 18 
Men's Open Singles 
• 1999- Certificate from certifying the beneficiary was awarded the ranking of number 5 in 
Men's Singles for 1999 
• 1999- Letter dated July 3, 2000 from certifying the beneficiary was awarded the ranking of 
number 4 in Men 's Open Singles as of August 1999, and number I in Boy 's 18 and Under2 
• 2004- Winner , Division I 
• 2005 - Winner, Division I 
The petitioner submitt ed documentary evidence of the receipt of such awards and/or copies of photographs of 
various trophies received by the beneficiary . The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationall y 
recogn ized pri zes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor [empha sis added]." Moreover, it is the 
petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for every element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner 
demonstrate the beneficiary' s receipt of awards and prizes, it must also demon strate that those awards and 
prizes are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. In other words, the petitioner must establish 
that the beneficiary's awards and prizes are recognized nationally or intern ationally beyond the awarding 
entities. 
Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's tournament victories resulted in his 
receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for tennis excellence. While the petitioner 
. submitted documentation evidencing the beneficiary's receipt of awards, the petitioner failed to submit 
documentation demon strating that the awards received from these competitions are nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards. In addition, the AAO notes that many of the awards that the 
2 This letter is incon sistent with the previous 
men's Open Singles for 1999. 
certificate stating the beneficiary was ranked number 5 in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
beneficiary won in junior competitiOn, as well as the beneficiary's two most recent awards in adult 
competitions, were awarded in competitions which appear to be regional competitions. Further, the petitioner 
has not established that twice achieving an ranking of four in Men' s Open Singles is the equivalent of 
an "award or prize for excellence in the field," as required by the plain language of the regulations . 
Without documentary evidence regarding the actual competitions themselves, such as the level of those who 
participated or evidence of the selection criteria, we cannot conclude, based on the name of the competitions 
alone, that the competitions or toumaments are national or international, and therefore that the results are 
recognized beyond the awarding entities as national or international awards . We emphasize that a competition 
may be open to athletes from throughout a particular country or countries, but this factor alone is not adequate to 
establish that an award or prize is "nationally or internationally recognized." The burden is on the petitioner to 
demonstrate the level of recognition and achievement associated with the beneficiary's awards. Further, none of 
the persons providing testimonials indicated that the beneficiary received any national or international awards. 
Therefore, the evidence submitted with respect to the beneficiary's national and international awards does not 
demonstrate the requisite sustained national or international acclaim as a competitive athlete . 
With respect to the beneficiary's United States tennis career, the beneficiary does not indicate that he has won 
any championships nationally or intemationally recognized for excellence. The record indicates that the 
beneficiary's accomplishments at included being Team Captain during his senior 
year and receiving several college awards for excellence in tennis. Based on the evidence submitted, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the beneficiary was a successful competitor at the collegiate level, but not the 
recipient of any nationally or internationally recognized awards. 
Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's competitive tennis career in 
or at the collegiate level in the United States, resulted in his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for tennis excellence. 
With respect to the beneficiary's experience as a tennis coach, the record contains no evidence that the 
beneficiary has received a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence as a tennis coach. The 
beneficiary 's coaching experience was documented through the testimonial evidence of several witnesses. 
In a letter dated January 30, 2012, the petitioner's owner, states: 
[The beneficiary] came to my academy located on the petitioner's premises on several 
occasions for training and tournaments. He is a 
and has been in the tennis industry for several 
years. He has coached many talented players and has provided his assistance to 
professional player during tournaments. 
In an additional letter dated February 18, 2013, states that the beneficiary was able to "mentor a 
lot of aspiring juniors in the right direction." He states the beneficiary is one of eight tennis professionals at 
the club. He also states the beneficiary is the and helps to run 
sanctioned tournaments . He further states the beneficiary "coaches 40 
juniors and approximately 15 adults." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
the petitioner's Tournament Director, praises the beneficiary's coaching abilities, stating the 
beneficiary "can make an exceptional difference to the level of the game of any player coming under his 
wing." 
the petitioner 's Tournament Training Director , states the beneficiary is able to impart 
techniques to his students in a very effective way, and knows the best way for players to reach their potential. 
a tennis coach with the petitioner, states, in language identical to that the 
beneficiary "can make an exceptional difference to the level of the game of any player coming under his 
wing." The letters, while not identical, use very similar language consistent with a common source. We 
acknowledge that the authors signed their letters, affirming the contents. Nevertheless, the use of slightly 
modified boilerplate language somewhat reduces the evidentiary weight of these letters. 
a tennis coach with the petitioner, states the beneficiary has trained high-level and 
aspmng players. He states that the beneficiary's knowledge of tennis and his experience "helps 
during tournaments." 
owner of the and a tennis 
shop, states he employed the beneficiary. He states the beneficiary coached tennis students, managed the 
tennis shop and served as an Advertising and Promotions Manager to increase the inn's clientele. 
president of the states the beneficiary "was a top 
· player in his respective age groups and at the natioriallevel up to 1999." He states as follows: 
At the time of leaving [in 1999] ... [the beneficiary] was ranked as No. I in Boys 
18 & Under and No. 4 m Men's Open Singles in 3 For the year 1998 [the 
beneficiary] was ranked No. 1 in Boys 18 & Under Singles and ranked No.5 in Men's Open 
Singles. [The beneficiary] has represented in numerous events both in and out of 
the country since the age of ten. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted letters pertinent to the beneficiary' s coaching experience from two 
professional tennis players . Overall , the record does not contain sufficient evidence of the coach-athlete 
relationship between the beneficiary and the successful athletes he is claimed to have coached 
a professional tennis player and a student and tennis coach at the petitioning company, 
submitted two letters, stating that the beneficiary "renders assistance to me during pro tennis events." 
She states that she is currently ranked 468 in the world. She states thatthe previous year she ranked 663 in the 
world . She provides her opinion that the beneficiary "is a real professional tennis coach and he can train 
tennis players at a very high level." She states the beneficiary "has provided me with extremely helpful 
coaching tips. He has helped me rise in the rankings." She states that the beneficiary helped her master 
3 As noted previously, this letter is inconsistent with the 
number 5 in Men's Open Singles for 1999. 
certificate stating the beneficiary was ranked 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
numerous "trick shots" that helped her win a recent match, the $10,000 ITF in 
states that she has trained with another of the petitioner's coaches, 
Mexico." She also 
a professional tennis player and student at the petitioning company, states that she is cun·ently 
ranked 363 in singles and 311 in doubles in the world. She states, "I met [the beneficiary] a few years back 
and trained with him in several occasions. His expertise helped me compete at tournaments." 
While the evidence establishes that Ms. and Ms. competitors at the adult, professional level, 
have won national or international tournaments or other nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for tennis excellence, Ms. and Ms. do not state that the beneficiary ever served as their 
personal coach or trainer, nor do they indicate when or for how long the beneficiary worked with them, or that the 
beneficiary contributed significantly to their receipt of any nationally or internationally recognized awards. Their 
statements are simply too vague to corroborate counsel's statement at filing that the beneficiary "has helped 
develop the top players in the country." 
Further , the petitioner submitted letters pertinent to the beneficiary's experience teaching tennis players 
competing at the junior level. states he is currently ranked " in the top 300 in the nation and in 
the top 25 in New York in the boys 16 and under age group ." He states "I wouldn't hold these 
accomplishments without [the beneficiary's] help." states the beneficiary has coached his son, 
Spencer, and that the beneficiary "has been instrumental in Spencer's success on the national and sectional 
level of tennis helping him achieve both a national ranking and a very high ranking in the 
states the beneficiary has helped improve 
the tennis game of his daughters He states ' is currently ranked number 31 in 
and number 77 in the She has competed in states 
the beneficiary is her daughter's tennis coach. She states the beneficiary has the ability to make his lessons 
productive and fun for the players in his groups. states she has known the beneficiary 
personally for many years and that the beneficiary was her son's tennis coach at s 
She states the beneficiary was "able to fine-tune" her son's tennis game. 
The evidence indicates that the beneficiary has been teaching amateur athletes, mainly competing at the junior 
level.4 Even if the petitioner had submitted copies of awards received by these students, an international 
award received by a student competing at the junior level would not carry the same evidentiary weight as an 
international award received by a competitor at the adult, professional level, without some additional 
explanation as to how the sport is governed at the junior level. 
As stated above, the 0-1 visa classification is restrictive and requires extensive documentation of 
extraordinary achievement. Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's competitive 
tennis career at the junior or senior level in or at the collegiate level in the United States , resulted 
in his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for tenni s excellence . The record 
also does not contain sufficient evidence of the coach-athlete relationship between the beneficiary and the 
successful athletes he is claimed to have coached. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
4 
The itinerary submitted at the time of filing states that under the approved petition the beneficiary will 
participate in coaching amateur players for several sponsored events. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(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. 
In this regard, the petitioner submitted a copy of a certificate issued to the beneficiary by the 
dated July 8, 2008, showing that the beneficiary "completed all 
requirements, including an extensive examination of teaching, playing and business skills, necessary for the rating 
of Professional 2." The certificate was accompanied by information downloaded from the website 
stating the requirements for obtaining rating of Professional 2, as follows: must be 18 years of age or 
older; must pass all portions of the Certification Exam at the Pro 2 level or higher; must have an 
of 4.0 or higher; and must demonstrate teaching ability through apprenticeship or 
teaching experience. 5 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the second criterion based upon his 
membership in the While his achievement of Professional 2 certification, apparently the second highest 
certification offered by the organization, is noteworthy, the recoro is devoid of any evidence that "outstanding 
achievement" is a pre-requisite to taking the certification examination, or that membership in the 
organization required the beneficiary to be judged by recognized national or international experts in his field. 
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 
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. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The petitioner submitted photocopies of several articles that mention the beneficiary, although not all of the 
submitted evidence includes the title, date and author of such published material. All of the articles pertain to the 
beneficiary's junior career in The petitioner submitted articles dated 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999, 
5 In addition, the petitioner submitted a certificate dated 2012 from the . awarded for five years of 
service to the association. The certificate was accompanied by a letter dated October 2012, from 
CEO of the The AAO notes that the instant petition was filed on March 12, 2012, approximately 
seven months before the beneficiary received this certificate. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this 
evidence, as the AAO's review of the record will be limited to the entirety of the evidence relating to the 
beneficiary's career achievements as a tennis player and a tennis coach prior to March 12, 2012. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
which reference the beneficiary, published in and 
While the beneficiary's name appears in all of the submitted articles, many of them simply 
reference his results at various matches. 
Furthermore, the petitioner provided no information regarding the publications, and thus it is 
impossible to conclude that the submitted articles could be considered as "major media" coverage of the 
beneficiary. 
Similarly, the petitioner did not provide any published materials referencing the beneficiary's work as a tennis 
coach or instructor. While the petitioner has provided numerous published materials relating to tennis players 
who the beneficiary is claimed to have coached, the articles do not specifically mention the beneficiary and, 
therefore, are not "about" the beneficiary, as required by the plain language of the statute. Further , there is no 
evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that such publications qualify as "major media." 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not satisfied this third criterion. 
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 
To meet the fourth criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence of the beneficiary's participation on a panel, or 
individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary meets this criterion based upon evidence submitted at the time of 
filing that the beneficiary possesses an which counsel describes as "[an] on­
court assessor which enables him to assess and track the progress and development of players and compare them 
to (sic) on a local, national and international (sic)." The petitioner did not establish how the beneficiary's 
possession of an constitutes judging the work of others in his field of specialization. 6 Based on the 
foregoing, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the fourth criterion set forth at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
6 The 
Evidenc e of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field 
petitioner submitted a list 
titled' 
dated January 16, 2012, published on the 
list identifies the beneficiary as an located at the 
website 
The 
The list 
states, "[o]nly Tennis Coaches who are Official Assessors are eligible to enter Official Assessment details and 
results on the website." The list also contains a photograph of a person 
standing on the sidelines of a tennis court . and the following caption: "An eager parent watches closely and 
enters the score for her son into an 
Based upon the submitted evidence, it appears that the beneficiary's role as an 
entering information obtained by others into a specialized database. 
involves 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
The fifth criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
The petitioner submitted support letters from the owner/director of the petitioning tennis club; 
the petitioner's tournament director and tennis coach; tournament director for 
the petitioner's tennis coach; a tennis coach with the 
petitioner; a tennis coach with the petitioner; owner of the 
and a tennis shop, who previously employed the 
beneficiary; and president of the 
These letters are from persons who are familiar with the beneficiary's work and accomplishments as a competitive 
tennis player and/or tennis coach. While the majority of these individuals praise the beneficiary's 
accomplishments and skills as a tennis player and abilities as a coach, none of the testimonial letters indicate that 
the beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance to his field. 
Furthermore, when considering a petitioner's claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion, USCrS cannot 
ignore the wording of the regulation. Whereas other regulatory passages refer to "extraordinary ability in the 
fields of science, education, business, or athletics," 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5) refers to "the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions." The omission of "athletic contributions" is a 
realistic reflection of the nature of athletic competition. Winning a competition is not an "original 
contribution;" it is expected that any given athletic event will have a winning athlete or team that outscores or 
outperforms rival competitors. Similarly, possessing a high level of the skills needed to succeed in a 
particular sport is generally a matter of degree, rather than an "original contribution" to the sport. Therefore, 
attestations regarding the beneficiary's talent, skills and success will not satisfy 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5) as evidence ofthe beneficiary's original contributions. Competitive success is already 
taken into account by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J), pertaining to prizes and awards, and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) instructs USCrS to take into account any major media attention that an athlete may 
earn by standing out from others in a particular sport. 
The AAO would also consider any recognition the beneficiary may have received from experts in his field for 
an "original" contribution to the sport of tennis as an athlete or instructor. However, none of the persons who 
provided recommendation letters identified the beneficiary's original contribution. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the fifth criterion set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media 
The petitioner submitted an article dated February 12, 2013 authored by the beneficiary, titled "Playing 
Competitive Singles," published on the website 
~----------------------~ 
The petitioner provided no information regarding this online publication, and thus it is impossible to conclude that 
the beneficiary's article received "major media" coverage. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the sixth criterion set forth at 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6) . 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations 
and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
The director concluded that the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner has claimed that the beneficiary meets the seventh criterion in that he has been employed in a 
critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). The beneficiary's coaching experience as previously discussed was document ed 
through the testimonial evidence of witnesses 
states as follows: 
He is a 
years. He has coached 
professional player 
and has been in the tennis industry for several 
many talented players and has provided his assistance to 
during tournaments. 
In an additional letter dated February 18, 2013, states that the beneficiary was able to "mentor a 
lot of aspiring juniors in the right direction." He states the beneficiary is one of eight tennis professionals at 
the club . He also states the beneficiary is the Assistant Director of Tournaments , and helps to run 
sanctioned tournament s. He further states the beneficiary "coaches 40 juniors and approximately 15 adults. " 
owner of the and a tennis 
shop, states the benefici ary coached tennis students, managed the tennis shop and served as an Advertising 
and Promotions Man ager to increase the inn's clientele. 
The petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary has been employed in a critical or essential capacity with these 
organizations. Nor does the submitted evidence establish that such organizations have a "distinguished 
reputation." 
In light of the above, the AAO withdraws this portion of the director's deci sion, and finds that the ev idence 
submitted does not satisfy the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7) . 
Summary 
The petitioner submitted no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major , internationally recognized award 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(A), and the documentation submitted does not meet three of the eight other 
evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) . 
C. Comparable Evidence 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) provides that 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 receipt of a major internationally recognized award 
pursuant to 8 C .F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(A), or by submitting evidence to satisfy at least three of the eight forms of 
documentation set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) . We further acknowledge that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) provides " [i]f the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of the section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility." It is clear from the use of the word "must" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) that the rule, not the exception, 
is that the petitioner is required to submit evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. Thus, it is the 
petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to the beneficiary's occupation 
and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) through (8). 
The petitioner has claimed eligibility under the "comparable evidence" regulation, based upon the petitioner 's 
testimonial evidence. On appeal, counsel emphasizes that the testimonial evidence in the record and numerous 
published materials relating to tennis players claimed to have been coached by the beneficiary meet the 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(C). Counsel cites to no authority for consideration 
of such evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) as comparable evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility. 
The testimonial letters have been considered above with respect to the beneficiary's receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor and with respect to the 
beneficiary's employment in a critical or essential capacity. The published materials relating to tennis players 
claimed to have been coached by the beneficiary have been considered above with respect to published material in 
professional or major trade publications or major media about the beneficiary . 
While the petitioner claims eligibility under the "comparable evidence" regulation, it has also claimed eligibility 
under 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6) and (7). The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for 0-1 classification 
in the beneficiary's occupation as a tennis coach cannot be established by submitting documentation relev ant to 
at least three of the eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). In fact, as indicated in this decision, the 
petitioner specifically indicates that it is submitting evidence relating to seven of the eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). An inability to meet a criterion, however , is not necessarily evidence that the criterion does 
not apply to the beneficiary' s occupation. 
Where an alien is simply unable to meet or submit documentary evidence meeting three of these criteria, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(C) does not allow for the submission of comparable 
evidence. 
III. Conclusion 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with 
the Kazarian opinion , the next step would be a consideration of the evidence in the context of a final merits 
determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under any of the criteria 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
found under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The AAO will not conduct a final merits 
determination. 
For the above-stated reasons, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), and the petition may not be approved .
7 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 
127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future 
proceeding on motion or as a result of litigation, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the official who made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also 
Section 103(a)(l) of the Act; Section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March l, 
2003); 8 C.P.R.§ 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R.§ l03.l(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec. 458, 460 
(BIA 1987)(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).