dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12034722 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 14, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a tennis academy, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a tennis coach, as a foreign national 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, 
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. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy, as required, the alternative evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability 
in athletics, either a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms 
of documentation pursuant to 8 C.F.R . § 214.2( o )(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)(15)(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). 
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 101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates the Beneficiary is employed as a tennis coach in the United States. The 
Beneficiary's background in athletics includes competitive tennis and tennis instruction. The record 
shows the Beneficiary competed as a tennis player in the junior and men's circuits of thd I I I between 2002 and 2008, and at the University of0between 2007 and 
2009. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary has been coaching tennis since at least 2009. The 
Petitioner states it will employ the Beneficia[ as a tennis instructor] providing group and private 
lessons atl land ____________ for a period of three years. It 
provided a deal memo and a summary of its oral agreement with the Beneficiary . 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary met 
the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), and she further found that the Beneficiary 
fulfilled only two of the alternative regulatory criteria , employment in a critical or essential capacity for 
distinguished organizations and establishments at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7) and high salary or 
other remuneration at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). We will not disturb these findings. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets three additional criteria. After reviewing 
all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. We will analyze the evidence submitted under each 
of those criteria below. 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 national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
The Petitioner asserted that it fulfilled this criterion through the Beneficiary's membership on_l __ _ 
I I team. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary 's 
membership o~ ~sl lteam required outstanding achievements as judged by recognized 
1 See also Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&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 ." 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
2 
national or international experts m their disciplines or fields. We agree with the Director's 
determination. 
In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's membership in the 
association is based on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having 
outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. Membership requirements 
based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, recommendations 
by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such 
requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given 
association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation . 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided several screenshots froltj l including! 
an overview stating that the competition, managed and run by the world governing body of 
I b, is "thel I team competition in world 
sport" and "gives players the chance to represent their country in an otherwise individual sport." 
The record also contains several recommendation letters and articles that are relevant to this criterion. 
For example, a letter from I I a former coach ofc::J' s I I team, provides that the 
Beneficiary "was invited to r lay on ourl I squad when he was only sixteen years old," and 
that he "played I . the I I tour, and Division 1 
collegiate tennis." He asserts that "[t]o be invited to compete po al I team is proof of a 
~ outstanding ability in his field." An article from SportsL I dated 2006 states that 
L_____ls tennis team is now drawn .. . for the game against~ I in the first round of the 
r===------. · e .. . The expandeal I team was appointed byl I 
L--1---i--r---1.!:::==::::::t.L,.--=""---=---.--,,,,.....----J [ the Beneficiary] , I I, I I 
The final staff would appoint five tennis players." 
A letter from I ~he current captain of I I team, states that the Beneficiary 
"joined ourl I Team when he was only sixteen years old" and that "[h]e belonged on our 
team." An additional article froml I dated 2006 quotd lthe captain ofl I 
c=Jteam, as stating that he "intends to produce a broad) I team, which will also include quite a 
few youngsters I l[the Beneficiaryi1L---, L ... to give young people a sense of 
belonging and also put them in the mantle of theLJ team." He explains that "[ t ]heir combination 
at a young a~e allows them to ... learn from veterans likel I and 
I } and "fives lore players, besides four or five who should be on the roster, a chance to 
enjoy the so-called team." A letter froml lindicates that when the Beneficiary was a 
sixteen-year-old junior tennis player he "was already practicing and working out with the I I 
team."3 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that "the.__ __________ __, chooses the players on the 
I lream. A player must be invited by the association to be a member of the team. To 
be chosen forl ~' a player must have a proven track record of significant accomplishment." 
3 Althoug~ I letter indicates that he became the captain orl~------~ team in 2015, this appears to be a 
scrivener's error. 
3 
Upon review, the aforementioned articles and recommendation letters do not establish that the 
Beneficiary was invited to compete or actual!} competed in the I I for the I I I I as a member ofj team. Instead, they indicate that he was selected to 
join them for "practicing and working out" and to learn from veteran tennis players. In addition, they 
do not provide any probative details to show that the Beneficiary's selection required outstanding 
achievements, as judged by national or international tennis experts. Although a beneficiary's 
participation as a member of a national team may demonstrate eligibility for this criterion as such 
teams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous selection process, it is the Petitioner's 
burden to demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets every element of a given criterion, including that he 
is a member of a team that requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their fields or disciplines. In this case, the Petitioner has not 
established the Beneficiary's membership on I I team required outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Based on the above reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
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 class[fication is sought, 
which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based on published materials 
pertaining to him as a tennis player and coach. The Director determined that the published materials do 
not meet this criterion, because they do not address how "the Beneficiary's achievements are outstanding, 
that he or she has a record of sustained national or international recognition, and is acknowledged as one 
of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the level of the Beneficiary's expertise as discussed in the articles should not be the determining factor 
of whether the published materials meet this criterion. We agree. If the Petitioner submits published 
material in professional or major trade publications or other major media about the Beneficiary relating 
to his work in the field, we will conclude that the evidence satisfies the plain language of this criterion. 4 
Here, however, the Petitioner did not demonstrate published material about the Beneficiary in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, including the author of the material. 
The Petitioner provided several articles in su ort of this criterion. The aforementioned article from 
S ort~ I is about an upcoming lirst-roundl compeTon be1weenl I and 
The aforementioned article from iscusses 's plans fo~ I 
--..... t-e_a_m-af_t_.er its "historic UK victory." An article from I I lists the competition results of the 
youth season, including that I I, a youth athlete coached by the Beneficiary, had "his 
first final in the national competitions." The article states that "according ti leadinf tennis experts, 
[the Beneficiary] is expected to be one of the most prominent coaches in Although the 
4 The level of the Beneficiary's expertise would be more relevant to an examination of the totality of the evidence. As 
discussed above, 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 that the beneficiary has achieved a level 
of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and that 
the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise through extensive documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii), (iii). 
4 
Beneficiary's name is mentioned in the above articles, they are not about him. Articles that are not 
about the Beneficiary do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-
CV-820-ECR-RJJ at* 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are 
not about the actor). 
In addition, the translations submitted for the above articles do not identify an author and were not 
accompanied by evidence that sufficiently demonstrates that the online ublications in which the 
articles appeared are major media. For example, materials about from the websites 
www.lib.guides.umd.edu and www.news.bbc.co.uk, and documentation fro __ .. __ __.did not contain 
information regarding the general online readership of those publications or other evidence showing 
that they constitute professional or major trade publications or major media, per the requirements of 
this criterion. Further, although the Petitioner provided information from Alexa.com about the global 
and country rank for the online publication I I none of the submitted articles appeared in that 
online publication. Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide comparative circulation statistics for 
Sports! I 
The Petitioner also rovided an article from The New York Times titled .__ __________ _. 
L------.---..--------ir--- ...... '-'w..;..;h7ich the Petitioner claimed "featured" the Beneficiary but 
was "abou ,____ ..... ten .......... .....,_,.....,_......_ _____ ........,_.......,,.....,."""'"' ...... """""''--""-' .......... .._,_......,"-"-"""""'.......____.., ........ ......,.,..,...._."'-'-'-','-al article 
from Cstv.com titled contains L-----------------~--------__JI-----, 
a picture of the Beneficiary with the caption "[ the Beneficiary] ~----------~" 
However, the photocopies of these articles are blurry and difficult to read; the Petitioner did not 
provide legible copies of these articles, demonstrating published material about the Beneficiary 
relating to his work. 
Finall~, the Petitioner submitted two "Fox5" screenshots of the Beneficiary, one with the caption 
I I' The Petitioner claimed that the screenshots reflected an interview of 
the Beneficiary "as a tennis expert ... discussing the scourge o~ I in professional tennis." 
However, the Petitioner did not provide a transcription of the video demonstrating published material 
about the Beneficiary relating to his work. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, we find that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that the 
Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
o_fmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based on his tennis 
training techniques, which he "has been invited to share ... with thd ITeam." It 
asserts that letters submitted from "top touring tennis professionals" coached by the Beneficiary and 
other experts in tennis coaching detail "[the Beneficiary's] original contributions as a coach," and it 
argues that the Director did not give appropriate weight to the submitted expert testimonials. In 
addition the Petitioner claims that a reviousl rovided article from Epitruslondon.com titled D 
.__ _____________________ __. supports its contention that "top coaches 
consistently make original contributions to their students' technical ability, strategic choices, and 
professional endeavors." The Director considered this documentation but found that it was not 
5 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's work constituted original contributions of major 
significance in the field. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with that determination. First, as 
noted by the Director, in order to meet the regulatory requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must 
establish that not only has the Beneficiary made original contributions but that they have been of major 
significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that the beneficiary's contributions have 
been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise 
risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
In addition, we note that this criterion requires "scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions." Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the Beneficiary's tennis training 
techniques are considered to be a scientific, scholarly, or business-related contribution . Rather, as it 
has indicated, that item is in the field of athletic coaching. Notwithstanding the foregoing, on appeal, 
the Petitioner points to several letters from tennis layers the Beneficiary has coached. 5 For example, 
I I and I I.__ ______ team members, assert in a joint letter that the 
Beneficiary "helped us dramatically in matches between the years of 2005 and 2010," and 
was "an im ortant fi ure" in their reaching the.__ __ _,of the World Group in the 2009 I I 
In addition, credited the Beneficiary with his having reached thel lof the 2009 
U.S. Open with partner_---,----,--,--~ J ! a retired professional tennis player, states 
that during the 2011 season he hired the Beneficiary, at the suggestion of his lead coach, to accompany 
him on tour and assist him with "mental fortitude and resilience ." He asserts that "[the Beneficiary] 
was critical to my success that season," as he rose froml I in the World and received the 
"distinguished' ___________ award. 6 
In addition, in his aforementioned letteJ I captain oft I team, indicates that 
the Beneficiary "has become a renowned coach in our field" and that "[t]here are quite a few players 
who have approached him to escort them to tournaments because they know that he has an in-depth 
understanding of the mental side oftennis."I ~ states that he "recently asked [the Beneficiary] 
to work with me to help the curren~ ! line-up" and that the Beneficiary is "creating 
the strategies that will be used to get our team back to the World Group." He asserts that the 
Beneficiary works with "ranked juniors" and is "an outstanding coach for young players." 
Here, while the letters indicate that the Beneficiary has successfully coached tennis athletes, including 
members o~ lteam, they do not, individually or collectively, identify how his 
instruction methods or training strategies have been recognized as an original contribution of major 
significance to the greater field of tennis and coaching . Demonstrating ability as a skilled tennis coach 
is not itself a contribution of major significance; rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary has impacted the field of tennis or tennis coaching as a whole. Cf Visinscaia v. Beers, 
4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-135 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
5 We have reviewed and considered all of the reference letters in the record, including those not specifically mentioned in 
this decision. 
6 Documentation frod !provides that the award goes to the "player who reached a significantly higheQ 
Ranking by year's end and who demonstrated an increasingly improved level ofperfonnance through the year." 
6 
When viewed in its totality, the record does not include documentary evidence showing how the 
Beneficiary's tennis coaching has already made a major impact on the field. The Petitioner did not 
show, for example, that the Beneficiary's instruction or coaching methods have been adopted by others 
or otherwise impacted anyone other than the individual athletes with whom he has worked, or that his 
techniques have garnered widespread attention in the field for obtaining significant results to which 
other coaches aspire. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. 
US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Upon review, the preceding letters of 
recommendation demonstrate that the Beneficiary's work has earned the respect and admiration of 
those with whom he has worked and collaborated, but they do not establish that he has made original 
scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in his field. Similarly, the 
aforementioned media coverage in the record mentions the Beneficiary's competitive and coaching 
accomplishments without suggesting that he has had an impact on the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted qualifying material under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) and the record 
does not establish that the Beneficiary meets at least three of eight evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for 
the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7