dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18475188 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 09, 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 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. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent 
appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon review , we conclude that the Petitioner has not met 
that burden . Accordingly , we will dismiss the motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2) . A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that 
the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the initial decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action . Thus, to merit reconsideration, a 
petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly 
completed Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause 
for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 1 
II. LAW 
As relevant here, section 10l(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). 
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 
III. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has presented new facts to warrant reopening its appeal 
and/or established that our decision to dismiss its appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw or 
USCIS policy. The Petitioner must specify the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were decided 
in error or overlooked in our initial decision. 
A. AAO Decision 
In our appellate decision we noted that, although the Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 0-1 
nonimmigrant classification through evidentiary criteria for individuals of extraordinary ability in the 
1 The Petitioner did not include the required "statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has 
been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l )(iii). Therefore. the Petitioner's motion does not meet the applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
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." 
2 
field of athletics under 8 C.F.R. 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B), 3 that from initial filing of the pet1t10n and 
continuing through the appeal, the Petitioner claimed 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 We explained that, 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." We also noted that 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 
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 Our prior decision 
mentioned that on appeal, the Petitioner argued 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 contended 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 referenced relating nonimmigrant 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)." We 
determined that, 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), our appellate decision would only consider those applicable arguments and decline 
to reach determinations on irrelevant eligibility claims. 
Our appellate decision farther noted that the Petitioner made additional eligibility claims and presented 
new evidence that were never argued or presented before the Director in this proceeding. Specifically, 
for the first time on appeal, the Petitioner contended 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(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(8). 
We determined that we would not consider new eligibility claims or evidence in our adjudication of 
the appeal. See Matter o_f 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 
3 We found that the Petitioner did not claim, nor did the record reflect, that the Beneficiary received a major, internationally 
recognized award under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). 
4 We noted that 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 We explained that the Director ultimately considered the evidence as it related to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
6 We noted that the Director indicated that the Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary'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 salaiy under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8), and we found that the record supports that determination. 
3 
of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec 533 (BIA 1988). 7 In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3). Further, 
we reserved a determination on the criterion related to original contributions at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), as the Petitioner was unable to fulfill at least three criteria. 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) . 
B. Motions 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we incorrectly determined that the previously submitted evidence 
was insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary meets the requirements of at least three criteria. We 
address its specific claims below. 8 
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(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(l) . 
In our appellate decision, we discussed the Petitioner's contention that the Beneficiary enjoyed 
collegiate success while attending ! IState University. 9 We noted, for example, that the Petitioner 
indicated that the Beneficiary achieved: Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) I 
Rookie of the Year Award, four-timel 
I ranked number one inl I Doubles for two straight years,I 
IMen's All-Conference Tennis Award 2 ITA 20021 
IN ational Championship Finalist 2003 I I Senior 
Player of the YearJ !State University's O 2002-2003 1 !Award, and 
national doubles champion at the 199~ I of Small College Tennis. We explained 
that 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. We found that although the 
Petitioner submitted general information relating to the NCAA, IT A, GLIAC, FSU and collegiate 
tennis, none of the documentation addresses the Beneficiary's specific awards or achievements, let 
7 We noted that 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 subm itted in response . 
8 On motion, the Petitioner does not contest our determination that it did not submit evidence that satisfies the published 
material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(3). Therefore , we deem this issue to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M­
A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009); see also See Sepulveda v. US. 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). 
9 The Petitioner also previously claimed eligibility under this criterion based on winnin the Men 's Tennis Pro-Am at 
I 1(2007), being part of a team that won the Championship and placed 
second at the United States Tennis Association (UST A championship (2012) , and teaming with 
I t win th<C:]Championship , the Cham ionship, and placing I Ith at 
I We determined that, although the Petitioner referenced letters from director of tennis ad I 
and I = ho summa,izcd some of the Beneficiary's achkvcments and commented on his skills, the lcttens 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 . The Petitioner has not pursued 
these claims on motion. 
4 
alone shows their national or international recognition for excellence in the field. Our decision also 
noted that the Petitioner referenced a recommendation letter from! I former head coach 
atQwho stated that the Beneficiary "was a four-time _________ and "was also the 
tenms teaml I for three rars and First Team All-Conference in singles and doubles each year he 
was there." We found that I's letter 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 . 10 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we "failed to properly credit the Beneficiary's extraordinary 
achievements" in thel I "despite evidence showing not only the significance of the I I 
athletics but also the significance of the Beneficiary's achievements." The Petitioner does not address 
how we misapplied the law or USCIS policy in determining that the evidence did not establish that 
the Beneficiary's aforementioned collegiate athletic honors represent nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence as required by this criterion. Disagreeing with our 
conclusions without showing that we erred as a matter oflaw or pointing to policy that contradicts our 
analysis of the evidence is not a ground to reconsider our decision. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may 
submit in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior 
decision) . Furthermore, our decision analyzed and explained why the evidence and arguments 
addressed in the appeal did not meet the regulatory requirements . Here, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that we erred in either misapplying law or policy or failing to address prior arguments or 
evidence. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that our prior determination with respect 
to this criterion was based on a misapplication of law or USCIS policy. 
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). 
Our appellate decision noted that the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion based 
on being a certified I lof the United States Professional Tennis Association 
USPT A , and referenced a letter froml I USPTA, who stated that "[ fo ]r the 
,...__ ........ ____ _. .. the applicant must be a USPTA member at least 22 years old; must pass the 
.__ _ _,written exam, which covers business, programming, sport science and tennis operations; must 
10 Our prior decision also noted that on ap□Petitioner argued under this criterion that the Beneficiaiy "began his 
long and distinguished career as a top-ranke ' "[i]n 1996, he was ranked No. 47 in thel I Rankings , 
as compiled by the! t' and "[t]he recognition and inclusion in these rankings is the 
embodiment of international recognition and achievement, " and submitted a document for the 1996 i I 
Ranking[s]" forc==]D oubles." We noted, however , the Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary 's! I double 
rankings 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 determined we would 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. 
Regardless , we noted that 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. 
5 
pass thee=] stroke analysis exam; and perform on the on-court exams at the0 level." Our 
decision explained that 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. We 
determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how such age and examination requirements are 
tantamount to outstanding achievements. We found that the Petitioner did not show tha0 status is 
reserved to those who have demonstrated outstanding achievements rather than for those who attained 
a minimum age and passed examinations. We further determined that I I's letter does not 
indicate whether recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements for 
membership, as required by the regulation. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we dismissed! l's "attestation of the significance of 
thel I designation" and that "[i]f the testimonial evidence of the top person and the top 
organization in the field is insufficient to establish the significance and ability of the Beneficiary to 
satisfy the criterion of membership in associations ... then USCIS has set an impossible standard." 
Rather than dismissl ts letter, however, our decision analyzed and explained why that 
evidence did not meet the regulatory requirements. As noted in our prior decision, the issue for this 
criterion is whether membership is based on outstanding achievements, as judrd by recognized 
national or international experts. We determined that the statement ot1~---~- did not show that 
Dstatus is reserved to those who have demonstrated outstanding achievements and, further, did not 
address all elements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) as it did not indicate whether 
membership is judged by recognized national or international experts in their fields. 
On motion, the Petitioner also asserts that we "dismissed the significance" of the Beneficiary's 
certification as a "Master Racquet Technician" (MRT) with the United States Racquet Stringers 
Association (USRSA), "despite the letter froml I president of the USRSA explaining the 
significance and requirements for certification and testimonial evidence from a top ranked 
international tennis professional and articles attesting to the significance of the MR T certification 
.... " Our appellate decision found that, although the Petitioner argued about the "significance of the 
MRT 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. We determined that the Petitioner did not show that MRT certification requires 
outstanding achievements, and that those outstanding achievements are judged by recognized national 
or international experts. We acknowledged that the Petitioner referenced a letter from I who 
stated that "[t]hese certifications require extensive testing including both a written exam and practical, 
hands-on skills set." We found, however, thatl I did not further elaborate and demonstrate 
how extensive testing is analogous to an outstanding achievement. Moreover, we determined that 
MR T membership is based on passing examinations rather than by being judged for outstanding 
achievements by nationally or internationally recognized experts. 
Similarly, we discussed the Petitioner's contention that "the combination of [ certifications as a US PTA 
Dand USRSA MRT] makes [the Beneficiary] truly extraordinary in the tennis profession" and its 
citation to a letter froml I, director of racquet sports at I I who 
commented that the Beneficiary's two certifications "offer a greater level of expertise to his customers 
and business." We determined, however, that the Petitioner did not show how combining □ and 
MRT certification satisfies the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2), 
6 
and neither one requires outstanding achievements , as judged by recognized national or international 
experts, as an essential condition for membership . 
Further, on motion the Petitioner asserts that we "failed to consider that the [B]eneficiary has been a 
member of th _____________________ for years." However, it does not 
acknowledge our prior determination not to consider this claim in our adjudication of the appeal, as 
the Petitioner did not make this claim of eligibility for this evidentiary criterion before the Director, 
either at the time it filed the petition or in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). See 
Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533. 11 
On motion, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that we erred in either misapplying law or policy or 
failing to address prior arguments or evidence in our determination that it has not shown that the above 
organizations require outstanding achievements as a necessary condition of membership and that 
recognized national or international experts are charged with judging whether a prospective member 
satisfies the organization's membership requirements. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that our prior determination with respect 
to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) was based on a misapplication of law or USCIS 
policy. 
Finally, on motion the Petitioner cites to retired USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual Chapter 22.2, 12 
relating to evaluating extraordinary ability immigrant petitions filed on behalf of persons who have 
previously been classified as 0-1 nonirnmigrants, asserting that "[ d]ismissing the appeal and finding 
that the Beneficiary does not merit classification under the 0-1 category is also contrary to USCIS' 
determination that the Beneficiary meets the criteria for the higher standard under the employment­
first preference." It also provides a copy of the Form I-797, Notice of Action, previously submitted 
into the record, showing that the Beneficiary in this matter is also the Beneficiary of an approved 
extraordinary ability immigrant petition, filed by the Petitioner and approved during the pendency of 
the present appeal. Because the Petitioner did not previously assert this claim, we did not err by failing 
to consider it. 13 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration and has not overcome the 
grounds for dismissal of the appeal. The combined motion to reopen and reconsider will be dismissed 
for these reasons. 
11 Similarly, we determined that we would not consider the Beneficiary's USTA certification as al I coach, 
as the Petitioner did not make this claim of eligibility for this evidentiary criterion in its initial filing or after the Director 
afforded it an opportunity in an RFE. 
12 We note that the guidance found in the retired AFM Chapter 22 has been replaced by policy guidance issued in the 
USCIS Policy Manual. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), retired Adj udicator 's Field Manua l Chapter 22.2, 
https :/ /www. uscis. gov /policy-manu al/vo lume-6-part- f-chapter-2 . 
13 Nonetheless , that guidance does not support the assertion that an approval of an immigrant visa petition mandates the 
approval of a similar nonimmigrant visa petition, as it affirms, as noted by the Petitioner , that each case must be decided 
on a case-by-case basis based on its own merits under the corresponding statutory and regulatory provisions. 
7 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
8