dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

MATTER OF C-C-A-M-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 13, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a tennis academy and training center, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a foreign 
national of extraordinary ability in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 101(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). This 0-1 classification makes nonimmigrant visas 
available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the record 
did not establish that the Beneficiary qualifies for the 0-IA classification. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in its consideration of the Petitioner's evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. PERTINENT LAW AND REGULATIONS 
Section 101(a)(l5)(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. § 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 ofthe small percentage who have arisen to the very top ofthe field of endeavor." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the fields 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 
Matter ofC-C-A-M-, LLC 
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: 
(1) Documentation ofthe 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; 
(J) 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. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (a)(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. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-C-A-M-, LLC 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.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 experts 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 expertise of the 
affiant and the manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and supporting 
documentation on April 30, 2015. The Director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on 
May 26, 2015, to which the Petitioner replied. We have considered the record in its entirety in 
reaching this decision. 
The Petitioner explained 
that it is a sports academy "specializing in delivering top-level training in 
tennis, soccer, basketball, lacrosse; and general fitness across six state-of-the-art facilities." 
According.to the record, the Petitioner intends for the Beneficiary to be a tennis coach at its facility 
in New Jersey for a period of 36 months beginning on May 1, 2015, with a salary of 
$38,400 per year. The Beneficiary would train junior and senior players for tournaments as well as 
plan and participate in coaching camps. The Petitioner's evidence also included the required 
advisory opinion, letters from other tennis players and coaches, information about the Beneficiary's 
certifications, memberships, and coaching experience, and articles about coaching. 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner did not claim, and the record does not establish, that the Beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). Therefore, 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(o)(3)(iii)(B). After careful review of the record and for the reasons discussed 
herein, the Petitioner has not established eligibility under three of the eight evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). We will address these criteria below.1 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the Petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the Petitioner asserts 
that it meets or for which it has submitted relevant and probative evidence. Although the Petitioner states that criteria 4, 
5, and 6 do not readily apply to athletes and coaches, and that therefore the comparable evidence standard applies, the 
Petitioner has not explained what evidence it considers comparable for these criteria, or which evidence that it provided 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-C-A-M-, LLC 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for· excellence in the field of endeavor 
To meet criterion number one, the Petitioner must submit documentation oftheBeneficiary'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)(B)(l). The Petitioner also claimed that this criterion applies to the 
Beneficiary under the comparable evidence standard because "[a]thletes, not coaches, win 
tournaments, trophies, and recognition. No prizes or awards are awarded to coaches in the sport of 
tennis." Although the Petitioner provided evidence that the Beneficiary was a member of the 
for Nigeria, the Petitioner did not provide any 
evidence that the Beneficiary or the 
Nigerian received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary should be evaluated for this criterion under the 
comparable evidence standard based on the achievements of the Beneficiary's students pursuant to 8 
.C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). The burden is on the Petitioner to show that the evidence submitted is 
comparable to the evidence the criterion describes. Accordingly, the Petitioner can rely on 
comparable 
evidence if it can establish that the Beneficiary has coached athletes who have received 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the sport while under the 
Beneficiary's instruction. 
The Beneficiary's coaching experience was documented through coaching certificates and 
testimonial evidence. The coaching certificates do not identify the athletes the Beneficiary was 
coaching. The Petitioner also did not submit any evidence that students the Beneficiary coached 
won any awards, either individually or a team. Therefore, although the Petitioner has submitted 
letters from a National Tennis Coach at the 
a tennis coach in Florida, and a tennis coach in the United Kingdom, 
regarding the Beneficiary's coaching experience, none of these letters indicate that the players 
coached by the Beneficiary won any nationally or internationally recognized awards while primarily 
under the Beneficiary's tutelage. · 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has received nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence in coaching or that he has coached athletes who 
have received such awards while primarily under his tutelage. Upon review, the submitted evidence 
does not satisfy the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
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 
met the comparable evidence standard for these three criteria. Even assuming these criteria are not readily applicable to the 
occupation of tennis coach, the burden is on the Petitioner to show that the evidence submitted as comparable is comparable 
to the evidence the criteria describe. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-C-A-M-, LLC 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner originally stated that the Beneficiary was a member of the 
was a certified professional from the 
which the Petitioner stated is the largest global organization of 
teachers and coaches: and a Tennis Coach in Ireland. 
The Petitioner did not provide any evidence that the Beneficiary was a member of the nor did 
the Petitioner submit evidence of requirements to be a member of the Although the 
Petitioner states on appeal that it submits evidence of the Beneficiary's membership in at 
"Exhibit B," such certification is not included in the record of evidence. 
The copy of the Certificate from the indicated that the Beneficiary qualified for Associate 
Instructor on June 21, 2001. According to website,2 (last reviewed on April 12, 2016, and a 
copy incorporated into the record), "[t]o become Certified you must pass all Certification 
Tests. The highest certification rating is Professional, followed by Instructor, then Associate 
Instructor. Your overall certification rating is the lowest of your test scores." However, the 
Petitioner has not explained how this documentation demonstrates that requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence regarding the 
which issued the certificate stating that the Beneficiary had successfully completed Level 
One in tennis coaching. Nor did the Petitioner submit any documentation regarding the 
requirements to receive this certificate. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that this criterion appties to the Beneficiary under the comparable 
evidence standard because "[t]here are no organizations in the field of Tennis that are unique to 
Coaches. The and offer opportunities for professional Coach Certification, but offer no 
membership class that requires outstanding achievements of their members." However, the 
Petitioner does not provide other comparable evidence of the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability, 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) and, instead, reiterates the Beneficiary's memberships and 
certifications as described above. As stated previously, the burden is on the Petitioner to show that 
the evidence submitted as comparable is comparable to the evidence the criterion describes. 
The submitted documentation does not establish that the Beneficiary's memberships and 
certifications are indicative of the Beneficiary's national or international acclaim as a player or as a 
tennis coach. For all of the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
Published material in professional or mqjor 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 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-C-A-M-, LLC. 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J), it 
must be "about" the Beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printedin professional or major 
trade publications or major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have 
significant national or international distribution. The Petitioner did not initially assert that the 
Beneficiary satisfied this criterion, and the Petitioner's initial evidence did not include published 
material about the Beneficiary 
that met this criterion. Accordingly, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not submit any evidence to establish that the Beneficiary satisfiedthis criterion . 
The Petitioner now argues that this criterion applies to the Beneficiary under the comparable 
evidence standard because "Tennis is an individual sport. There exist few articles about the coach." 
However, the Petitioner does not offer what it considers would constitute comparable evidence of 
the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). As stated 
previously, the burden is on the Petitioner to show that the evidence submitted as comparable is 
comparable to the evidence the criterion describes. We note that the Petitioner may have been able 
to rely on comparable evidence if it had established that the Beneficiary coached athletes who were 
featured in major media, provided that that it could also demonstrate that these players' success was 
attributable to the Beneficiary's coaching. Further, the Petitioner did not submit articles in major 
media featuring athletes the Beneficiary coached, nor, as discussed in criterion one, did the 
Petitioner demonstrate that such athletes' success was primarily due to the Beneficiary's coaching. 
The .Petitioner's evidence includes one article in called 
dated , 2013. This article mentions 
the Beneficiary as follows: 
Then, we had players. 
etc. Later, the likes of [the Beneficiary], 
They made tennis vibrant here and the sport competed with football. Newspapers led 
with tennis stories. We went to the airport to cover the arrival of tennis players. 
Additionally, the Petitioner includes a printout from the website of 
which put the Beneficiary on its list of "Some of Nigeria's Finest Sports Men and Women 
of All Times." However, the Petitioner did not establish that _ or 
is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. The Petitioner did not submit 
evidence 
pertaining to the audience, circulation and distribution of the publications. 
Based on the forgoing, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the evidentiary 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J). · 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-C-A-M-, LLC 
The seventh criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that the Beneficiary 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 Director determinedthat the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner assertsthat the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based on his working as 
"Captain/Playing Coach of the While the Beneficiary's position as 
captain and· player-coach of his may be in a critical or essential capacity for his 
team, the Petitioner has not established that the team is an organization with a distinguished 
reputation. The record contains no evidence that the team has achieved any measureable success in 
the competition or any information about the requirements for participation in a 
competition. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2( 0 )(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
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 
As discussed previously, the Petitioner offered the Beneficiary a salary of $38,400. On appeal, the 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will earn more than $56,490 per year, which it claims is higher 
than the OES Level 4 wage in its metropolitan statistical area for coaches and scouts. A petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). 
A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1978). Further, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8) 
requires the Petitioner to submit evidence showing that the Beneficiary will earn a "high salary." 
Average or median salary information is not a proper basis for comparison. Accordingly, as the 
·Petitioner has not provided meaningful comparisons to the Beneficiary's past and proposed salary, 
the submitted evidence does not meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). 
IV. PRIOR APPROVALS 
The Petitioner also claims that the petition should be approved because USCIS approved another 0-
1 petition that had been previously filed by a different petitioner on behalf of another tennis coach 
whom it states has similar credentials to the Beneficiary. The Director's decision does not indicate 
whether she reviewed the prior approval of the other nonimmigrant petition. If the previous 
nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same unsupported assertions that are contained in 
the current record, the approval would constitute material and gross error on the part of the director. 
We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Corum. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that 
USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Matter ofC-C-A-M-, LLC 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved nonimmigrant 
petitions on behalf of other beneficiaries and the Petitioner could demonstrate that they had similar 
credentials to the Beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a 
service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), aff'd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Beneficiary has not received a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize, 
and the record does not satisfy at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) or the 
comparable evidence provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). Consequently, the Petitioner has 
not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for classification as a foreign national with 
extraordinary ability in athletics. 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-C-A-M-, LLC, ID# 16205 (AAO Apr. 13, 2016) 
8