dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12964836 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 5, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a country club, employs the Beneficiary as a tennis director. It seeks to extend the 
Beneficiary's classification as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, a visa classification available to individuals who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 1 See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of 
extraordinary ability in athletics: either receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or at least 
three of eight possible forms of documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business , or athletics that 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. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define "extraordinary 
ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "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." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii) . 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements . A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
1 
Se~------~I , with a validity period of May 11 , 2019 to May 10, 2020. 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 10l(a)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii).2 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Eligibility Claims 
As discussed above, the Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 0-1 nonimmigrant classification 
through evidentiary criteria for individuals of extraordinary ability in the field of athletics. 3 See 8 
C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). However, from initial filing of the petition and continuing through the 
appeal, the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility relating to other nonimmigrant and immigrant 
classifications. Specifically, at initial filing and in response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE), the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary satisfied "[ e ]vidence that the alien has achieved 
national and international recognition for achievements evidenced by published materials by or about 
the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3)." 4 On the contrary, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) 
actually provides "[p ]ublished 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." The 
Petitioner referenced regulatory language applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability in the arts 
- 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2), a separate and distinct nonimmigrant classification. 5 
After considering the arguments and evaluating the submitted evidence, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for only one criterion - critical or essential 
capacity at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 6 On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary 
meets eight categories of evidence, some of which relate to the immigrant classification for individuals 
of extraordinary ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, the Petitioner contends that 
the Beneficiary meets the display criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) and leading or critical role 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). In addition, the Petitioner references relating nonimmigrant 
2 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, ·'truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
3 The Petitioner does not claim, nor does the record reflect, that the Beneficiaiy received a major, internationally recognized 
award under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). 
4 At initial filing, the Petitioner also asserted the Beneficiary's eligibility for original contributions under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(5) and critical or essential capacity under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(7). In the RFE response, the 
Petitioner made additional claims of the Beneficiary's eligibility for awards under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) and 
memberships under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
5 The Director ultimately considered the evidence as it related to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
6 The Director indicated that the Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiaiy's eligibility for the judging criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6), and high salary under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(8), and the record supports that determination. 
2 
and immigrant regulatory categories, such as "Category #1: Receipt of lesser nationally and 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. (0-1 and EB-1 
category)." Because this proceeding is based on the Petitioner seeking nonimmigrant classification 
for the Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii), we will only consider those applicable arguments and decline to reach 
determinations on irrelevant eligibility claims. 
Further, the Petitioner makes additional eligibility claims and presents new evidence that were never 
argued or presented before the Director in this proceeding. Specifically, for the first time on appeal, 
the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary fulfills the criteria relating to judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4) and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). Accordingly, we will 
not consider new eligibility claims or evidence in our adjudication of this appeal. See Matter of 
Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the 
required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we 
will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the 
appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec 533 (BIA 1988).7 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets the 
requirements of at least three criteria . 
B. Evidentiary Requirements 
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)(B)(l) 
The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary "began his long and distinguished career as a top-ranked 
junior," "[i]n 1996, he was rankedl ~n the I.T.F. Junior World Rankings, as compiled by the 
International Tennis Federation," and "[t]he recognition and inclusion in these rankings is the 
embodiment of international recognition and achievement" and submits a document for the 1996 
"I.T.F. Junior World Ranking[s]" for I . t However, the Petitioner did not claim the 
Beneficiary'sjuniorl lranking s before the Director, and the Petitioner did not provide the 
Director with this evidence at either at the time of initial filing or in response to the RFE. Accordingly, 
we will not consider this additional claim and supporting evidence in our adjudication of this appeal. 
See Soriano, 19 I&N Dec . at 766; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec at 533.8 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary enjoyed collegiate success while attending 
I I University. For example, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary achieved: 
Intercollegiate Tennis Association (IT A) ______________ ..--_Award , four-time 
National Colle iate Athletic Association (NCAA)i..r-----1-- ___ __. ranked number one in 
for two straight years, Intercollegiate Athletic Conference 
IL----------..----, Tennis Award, ITA 20021 !National 
7 The Director's RFE informed the Petitioner that it did not submit any evidence for these criteria and provided possible 
examples or types of documentation that could be submitted in response . 
8 Notwithstanding , the Petitioner did not demonstrate how rankings equate to prizes or awards, nor did the Petitioner 
supplement the record with evidence showing their national or international recognition for excellence in the field. 
3 
Championship Finalist, 20031 I and TTA! !Player of the Year.I I D University's C7 2002-20031 I Player Award, and I I champion at 
the 1999 I I Tennis. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) requires that the Petitioner to not only demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
received prizes or awards but establish that those prizes or awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field. Although the Petitioner submitted general information relating 
to the NCAA, IT A, I I~ and collegiate tennis, none of the documentation addresses the 
Beneficiary's specific awards or achievements , let alone shows their national or international 
recognition for excellence in the field. 
Likewise, the Petitioner references a recommendation letter fron.J I former head coach 
atowho stated that the Beneficim::.t "was a four-time NCAAI f and "was also the 
te~ I for three years and !All-Conference inl I and I each year he 
was there." However,! I did not discuss the significance of these collegiate athletic honors 
in the field or show how they represent nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based on winning the Men's 
Tennd I atl I (2007), being part of a team that won the 
I !champion ship and placed second at the United States Tennis Association (USTA)I I 
I I cham ionshi (2012), and teaming with to win the I I 
Championship, the Championship, and plactg 11th[ a While the 
Petitioner references letters fro L------_,, director of tennis a an ,__ ____ __,who 
summarized some of the Beneficiary's achievements and commented on his skills, the letters do not 
contain specific, detailed information explaining how the Beneficiary's local, state, and regional 
accomplishments reflect nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) . 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion based on being a certified "Elite 
Professional" (EP) of the United States Professional Tennis Association (USPTA) and references a 
letter frortj I for USPT A, who stated that "[ fo ]r the Elite Professional ... the 
applicant must be a USPT A member at least 22 years old; must pass the Elite written exam, which 
covers business, programming, sport science and tennis operations; must pass the Elite stroke analysis 
exam; and perform on the on-court exams at the Elite level." In order to meet this criterion, the 
Petitioner must establish the Beneficiary'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. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how such 
age and examination requirements are tantamount to outstanding achievements. Here, the Petitioner 
did not show that EP status is reserved to those who have demonstrated outstanding achievements 
4 
rather than for those who attained a minimum age and passed examinations. Furthermore,D 
.__ __ __.I letter does not indicate whether recognized national or international experts judge the 
outstanding achievements for membership, as required by the regulation. 
Similarly, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's certification as a "Master Racquet Technician" 
(MRT) with the United States Racquet Stringers Association (USRSA) meets this criterion and 
references a letter froml I USRSA, who stated that "[t]hese certifications 
require extensive testing including both a written exam and practical, hands-on skills set." I I 
however, did not further elaborate and demonstrate how extensive testing is analogous to an 
outstanding achievement. Moreover, MR T membership is based on passing examinations rather than 
by being judged for outstanding achievements by nationally or internationally recognized experts. 
Although the Petitioner argues about the "significance of the MR T certification" and the "importance 
of the racquet stringing industry," the issue for this criterion is whether membership is based on 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. Here, the 
Petitioner did not show that MR T certification requires outstanding achievements, and those 
outstanding achievements are judged by recognized national or international experts. Likewise, the 
Petitioner contends that "the combination of [ certifications as a USPT A EP and US RSA MR T] makes 
[the Beneficiary] truly extraordinary in the tennis profession" and cites to a letter froml I I !Athletic Club, who commented that the Beneficiary's two 
certifications "offer a greater level of expertise to his customers and business." However, the 
Petitioner did not show how combining EP and MR T certification satisfies the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2), and neither one requires outstanding achievements, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts, as an essential condition for membership. 
The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary's USTA certification as a Net Generation coach and 
membership on the advisory staff of thel I fulfills this 
criterion. However, the Petitioner did not make these claims of eligibility for this evidentiary criterion 
in its initial filing or after the Director afforded it an opportunity in an RFE. Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 
766; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533.9 Furthermore, we note in regard tol I the 
Petitioner submits an email welcoming the Beneficiary, dated six months after the initial filing of the 
petition. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit 
have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
9 Regarding Net Generation certification, the Petitioner cites to previously submitted letters that indicate the Beneficiary's 
certification and comment on his skills and abilities but do not show that USTA Net Generation certification requires 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
5 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or other 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). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about the 
Beneficiary in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, 
and author of the material. The Petitioner resented screenshots from I I 
indicating coverage of the0' s 2011 in which the Beneficiary was mentiQned one 
time as being the doubles partner o who was one of the inductees. The material reflects 
published material about the 2011 inductees andl I rather than about the Beneficiary. Articles 
that are not about an alien do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. Cf, Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-
CV-820-ECR-RJJ at* 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show 
are not about the actor). In addition, the article does not identify the author, as required by the 
regulations, and the Petitioner did not offer evidence showing thatl !represents 
a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
Similarly, the Petitioner submitted screenshots of an article postedc=:5 I reflecting 
published material about the Beneficiary and his returning to direct s men's tennis program. 
However, the articles does not include the required date and author of the material, and the record does 
not demonstratd I as a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
Additionaly, the Petitioner offered screenshots of an article posted ()rl I showing published 
material about the Beneficia: and re:orting on his doubles match, the Petitioner did not present 
evidence demonstrating! ~ 0 Js status as a professional or major trade publication or other 
major medium. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents screenshots from usnews.com regardingLJ However, the 
Petitioner did not submit this evidence in its initial filing or after the Director afforded it an opportunity 
in an RFE. Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533. Regardless, the 
screenshots reflect an overview of c=J without showing that c:J, s related websites constitute 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The Petitioner also claims the Beneficiary's eligibility based on two articles posted on 
.__ ________ __. However, none of the articles reflect published material about the Beneficiary 
relating to his work. Although they briefly mention and quote the Beneficiary, the articles are about 
restoring tennis in thel larea and playing pickleball. Cf, Negro-Plwnpe, 2:07-CV-820-ECR­
RJJ at *7. In addition, the Petitioner presents an article posted o~ I announcing 
that its newspaper edition will reduce the frequency of its printing and its digital presence "attracts 
more than 300,000 pageviews per month." However, the Petitioner did not provide independent, 
objective evidence to substantiate the newspaper's digital figures, nor did the Petitioner show the 
significance of 300,000 pageviews to establish the major medium standing of the website. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfied the criteria relating to awards, 
memberships, and published material. Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility 
regarding original contributions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 5), we need not reach this additional 
ground. 10 As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), we reserve this issue. 11 Consequently, the Petitioner has not established 
the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate 
basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10 The Petitioner seeks the Beneficiary's classification as a tennis director in athletics; however, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 5) requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in the field." 
11 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7