dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 04 184 52913 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: , ?, irrnr 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 184 52913 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Acting Director, Nebraska Service Center, 
and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, the Eau Claire YMCA, seeks 0-1 classification of the beneficiary, as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in athletics under section IOl(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 
1 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(0)(i), in order to employ him in the United States as its head tennis professional for a period of two 
years at an annual salary of approximately $40,000. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a tennis professional. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submits additional evidence. 
Section 101(a)(l5)(O)(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the $eld of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part, that: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinmy ability in the$el& 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 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 of the 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 national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
LIN 04 184 52913 
Page 3 
(3) 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 the 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 (o)(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. 
The beneficiary in this matter is a 40-year old Canadian citizen. The evidence on the record indicates that the 
beneficiary previously entered the United States as a nonirnmigrant student. 
After a careful review of the record, it must be concluded that the petitioner has failed to overcome the 
grounds for denial of the petition. The record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary is an alien with 
extraordinary ability in athletics. 
First, there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received an award equivalent to that listed at 8 C.F.R. tj 
214.2(0)(3)(iiiXA). Nor is the record persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary met at least three of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iiiXB). 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for r?xcellence 
in thefild of endeuvor. 
For criterion number one, the petitioner submitted a letter written by the president of the Kuwait Tennis 
Federation, which states that in 1994 the Federation "awarded [the beneficiary] a National distinction award 
for his excellent work both in teaching tennis and operating first-rate national level tennis competitioi~s." 
LTN 04 184 529 13 
Page 4 
In review, the petitioner has failed to establish the significance of this award. The beneficiary does not satisfy this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the$eld for which classlJication is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines orjelds. 
For criterion number two, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's membership in the Professional Tennis 
Registry (PTR), and the United States Professional Tennis Association (USPTA) satisfies this crite:rion. The 
director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that these organizations require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their field of 
endeavor. The AAO concurs. According to the evidence on the record, both the PTR and USPTA are 
certification entities. Although the beneficiary has been certified at the highest level by both associations, the 
record does not show that membership is predicated on outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in tennis instruction. The beneficiary does not satisfL this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation on apanel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in 
an a22iedjeld of specialization to that for which classijcation is sought. 
For criterion number four, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has instructed and developed 
students and instructors in tennis. As a tennis instructor, the beneficiary was merely performing his job. The 
record fails to show that the beneficiary was selected to judge the work of others on the basis of his acclaim. The 
beneficiary does not satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments 
that hme a distinguished reputation. 
For criterion number seven, the director determined that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. This portion of the 
director's decision shall be withdrawn. 
According to the evidence on the record, the beneficiary has most recently been employed as a manager at the 
Waterloo Tennis Club in Waterloo, Ontario. He spent five years at the Safir International Hotel in Kuwait as 
Director of Tennis and Interim Recreation Manager. In the summer of 1987, he taught tennis to vacationers in 
Italy. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
distinguished organizations and establishments. The beneficiary does not satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other 
remunerution for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 
For criterion number eight, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary commanded a high salary while working in 
Kuwait. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a wage survey titled "Tennis Pro Compensation Report 2002," that 
LIN 04 184 529 13 
Page 5 
indicates that the average wage for tennis instructors in the United States' Midwest region was $42,306. The 
petitioner compared the beneficiary's annual wage in Kuwait ($60,000) with the average wage in the U.S. 
Midwest ($42,306) and concluded that the beneficiary earned a high salary in relation to other tennis instructors. 
As the regulations require that the beneficiary have sustained national or international acclaim, lo evaluate 
whether the salary is high, CIS would need a wage survey that specifies the median and highest wages offered 
nationwide or internationally to tennis instructors. It is not enough to compare the beneficiary's salary with 
the median or average wage. This criterion must be indicative of the beneficiary's extraordinary 
achievement. The beneficiary does not satisfy this criterion. 
Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B) do not readily allply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, and as comparable evidence submits letters written by the petitioner's Tennils Director, 
which explains the uniqueness of the beneficiary's experience and abilities as compared to the other applicants for 
the proffered position. In review, this evidence is insuff~cient, without more, to establish eligibil~ty for this 
restrictive visa classification, which requires extensive documentation of extraordinary achievement. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S C. 9 1361. 
Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.