dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17570753 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 30, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a fmancial services and sports management business, 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)(l5)(O)(i), 8 U.S .C. § l 101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California 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) . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets at least three criteria along with comparable 
evidence of the Beneficiary's eligibility. The Petitioner further avers that the Director held its evidence 
to an elevated standard beyond that which is required by most administrative immigration cases, the 
preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. 
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 . 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) . A petitioner must 
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). If the petitioner 
demonstrates that the criteria in paragraph ( o )(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the individual's 
eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
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)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
Upon review, the record does not support the Petitioner's averment that the Director held its evidence 
to an elevated standard beyond the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof . Using this 
standard, and for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director 's conclusion that the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for the requested classification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary 's background in athletics includes tennis instruction and competitive tennis. 
Beneficiary indicates on his resume employment , as of March 2019, as a tennis coach with the 
I II I Nevada, coordinating it __________ __, for 
I land providing group and individual tennis instruction . The record also shows the 
Beneficiary competed as a tennis player and erformed as a volunteer assistant coach between 2016 
and 2018 while an undergraduate student a and the University ofl I I I The Petitioner manages the tennis program at ~--- and seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as the head tennis coach at the club for a period of three years, where his responsibilities 
will include managing the club'~ !program and coordinating itsl I 
I I 
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 one of the alternative regulatory criteria, high salary or other remuneration at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8) . We will not disturb these findings . 
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 maintains that the exhibits satisfy two additional criteria and that it also 
submitted comparable evidence of the Beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). As 
explained below, we find that the exhibits do not satisfy at least three of the evidentiary categories 
described 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). 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). 
In the Director's decision, she determined that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary's membership with 
the United States Professional Tennis Association (USPTA) and as a member of the I I 
national team that participated in the Davis Cup demonstrates the Beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show 
that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership . Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 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. 
Regarding USPT A, a review of the record of proceeding reflects that the Petitioner submitted an 
unsigned letter, dated October 2020, from! I USPTA, congratulating the 
Beneficiary for successfully "completing the Professional Certification" and enclosing the Beneficiary's 
test results. In addition, the Petitioner submitted a copy of the Beneficiary's certification exams for 
Private Lessons and Group Lessons, showing that they were administered to him in September 2020, 
and a certificate indicating the Beneficiary achieved a USPTA "Professional" rating. The Petitioner also 
submitted a letter from the International Tennis Federation (ITF) stating the Beneficiary completed 
courses from its online academy in September 2020. Further, the record contains two letters from 
I I a USPTA I I who provides that he certified the Beneficiary "to become a 
member of the [USPTA]." 
2 We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner claimed, but did not establish, that the Beneficiary meets the 
criteria related to receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J) and published material in professional publications or major media under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director 's finding that the Beneficiary does not 
meet these criteria or offer additional arguments . Therefore , we consider these issues to be abandoned . See Sepulv eda v. 
U.S. Att 'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011 , 2011 WL 4711885 at 
*l , *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal 
to the AAO). 
3 
However, the petition was filed on February 10, 2020. Eligibility must be established at the time of 
filing. Therefore, we will not consider the Beneficiary's membership with USPTA to establish his 
eligibility for this criterion. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That 
decision farther provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), that USCIS cannot 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
Nonetheless, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's USPTA Professional certification 
rating reflects outstanding achievements. The Petitioner has not, for instance, submitted any 
documentation reflecting an overview of the USPTA certification process. We are not persuaded that 
passing a standardized examination is tantamount to outstanding achievements, as the Petitioner has not 
established that it is judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's membership with thel !national team that competed in the 
Davis Cup, the record contains an article from Prensalibre.com dated 2013 that indicates that the 
Beneficiary was racket four of the I I Davis Cup team. 3 The Petitioner provided the 
Beneficiary's photo I.D. badges showing he was a member of the I I national team in the 
Davis Cup match between! I in Group II of the Americas in February 2017, and 
in the Central American and Caribbean Sports Games in 2018 inl I In addition, an article 
dated 2019 fro~ \and an undated article from R media.com rovide thatl I 
men's tennis player! the Beneficiary, and were members of 
I ts Davis Cup team, which was defeated b ~-~in the Americas Group II. Further, the 
documentation submitted includes an unsigned "Call of Honor" from the I I Tennis 
Federation 5 datedl I 2020, "inviting [the Beneficiary] to be part of the selectiop....uf..nlfil;ers 
that will represent! lin the Davis Cup team, Davis CuQ World Group II againstL___J in 
I 12020, and requesting that he confirm his participation by I 12020. 
While 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, however, 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. We will not 
presume that every national "team" is sufficiently exclusive. In this case, the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary's membership on thel !national team requires outstanding achievements 
of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
3 The Petitioner has provided translations of foreign language articles regarding events at which it asserts the Beneficiary 
competed with the I I national team. The Petitioner submitted only counsel's blanket certification for "translations 
contained in Exhibit [7,8, or 9]." The February 10, 2020, certifications do not list the translations they purpmt to ce1tity or even 
name the Beneficiary. Further, some of the translations clearly omit sentences or passages from the foreign language 
document. Because these translations do not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), they have significantly diminished 
probative value. 
4 It appears that thiJ lis the Beneiiciarv's brother 
5 The record indicates that the Beneficiary's father,_ [ served as the president ofthe~I ---~ITennis 
Federation. 
4 
As the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's memberships with any of the aforementioned 
associations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary 
satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
The scope of this evidentiary criterion focuses on the relative importance of the Beneficiary's position 
within the scope of the organizations that have employed him. The Petitioner maintains that the 
Beneficiary's employment as head tennis coach forl l"is critical to the organization as a whole." 
The record does not establish, however, that the Beneficiary has been employed in a critical or essential 
capacity for this or any other organization. 
First, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient details regarding when the Beneficiary joinedl I his 
specific role, or how his contributions were critical or essential to the sports club. For example, although 
the proffered job is as the head tennis coach for the club, the record does not establish sufficiently that the 
Beneficiary has previously worked as the head tennis coach for the club. As discussed above, the 
Beneficiary indicates on his resume that beginning in I I 2019 he was employed byl I as a 
tennis coach, coordinating its I I for I I and providing group 
and individual tennis instruction. The Petitioner also did not submit documentation showing where the 
Beneficiary's position of tennis coach fell within the organization's general hierarchy, such as evidence 
of how it related to other coaches in the organization or the number of coaches employed. 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserted within its response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE) that "we have established that [the Beneficiary] will be employed in a critical and essential 
position at thd I' and contended, in a letter from its president! I that employing 
the Beneficiary as head tennis coach is "essential to the overall financial stability of the club as a 
revenue-producing arm to subsidize other amenities," the Petitioner's assertions primarily indicate that 
the Beneficiary's presence is important to the club's future "tennis-focused memberships" and 
financial position, and does not show that the Beneficiary has already played a critical role that has 
been shown to be of importance to any success enjoyed by thel I 
Further, the Petitioner asserts that the letters of recommendation provided are evidence that the 
Beneficiary has been em lo ed in a critical or essential capacity fo~ I For instance, a letter from 
club membeL_ __ ...,-------...___J dicates that in 2019 the Beneficiary was the "Head Coach" of "[t]wo 
small teams from the~-~' the,__ ________ ___, League team and the I l team, 
however, the letter does not describe the manner in which the Beneficiary's role as a tennis coach was 
critical or essential for the sports club. While the Beneficiary has earned the admiration of his 
references, the letters do not demonstrate that his successes are reflective of a critical or essential role 
for an organization or establishment under this criterion. 
Moreover, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not submitted evidence 
sufficient to establish thatl I has a distinguished reputation, as required. Within the Petitioner's 
initial submission, it asserted that thel I "has a distinguished reputation in I IN evada." 
5 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter datedO2018 from USTA Nevada tol I notifying 
the club that it won the USTA Nevada I I Award. Within its response to the 
Director's RFE, the Petitioner's president asserted that the club also received this award in 2017, its 
first year of operation, and argued that "while I ~ may not have quite the histoJ or prestige of 
clubs like the[ I Tennis Club inl I CA or I I in I NY, it 
is quickly gaining respect and notoriety as a place where the serious world class athletes train." 
However, the above awards, which appear to be local or regional in nature, are insufficient to 
demonstrate the distinguished reputation ofl I 
Based on the foregoing discussion, we find that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that the 
Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
C. Comparable Evidence 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director erred in not considering the Beneficiary's 
experience coaching "the very unique clientele that belongs to the I I" and the letters of 
recommendation attesting to his experience. It seeks eligibility under the "comparable evidence" 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C), and previously claimed within its response to the 
Director's RFE that "[t]he regulatory criteria ... is not folly applicable to the occupation of Head 
Tennis Coach at al I such as the I I, whose members consist of CEOs, professional 
athletes, renowned physicians and musicians, former CIA agents, and other high net worth 
individuals." We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied the comparable evidence 
provision under 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) provides that comparable evidence "may" be submitted 
if the criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. It is the 
Petitioner's burden to articulate why one or more criteria do not readily apply to the Beneficiary's 
occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable." Here, the Petitioner does not explain 
which criteria do not apply to a head tennis coach. 6 
The Petitioner, instead, argues that several letters of reference, including froml I members for 
whom the Beneficiary has coached, should be considered as comparable evidence of his extraordinary 
ability. However, the Petitioner has not explained how this evidence is comparable to any of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii), nor has it demonstrated that it is reflective of 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). For example, the letters do not indicate the extent of 
the Beneficiary's influence on other tennis players, nor do they show his acclaim in the field. As such, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the comparable evidence provision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally 
recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(A), and the exhibits do not satisfy at least three 
6 Regardless, an individual's inability to meet a regulatory criterion does not necessarily establish that the criterion does 
not readily apply to his occupation. 
6 
of the evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), nor do they meet 
the requirements of 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 the 0-1 visa classification as a foreign 
national with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7