dismissed O-1A Case: Tennis Coach

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 31, 2024 In Re: 31746073 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a tennis coach, 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. 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 on the following three grounds: 
1) the Petitioner did not provide a contract, 2) the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
events or activities, and 3) the Petitioner did not satisfy the advisory opinion requirement. 1 The matter 
is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(B) requires any written contracts between 
the petitioner and the beneficiary or, if there are not any, a summary of the terms of the oral agreement 
under which the beneficiary will be employed. In addition, the regulation at 8 C .F .R. 
§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C) requires an explanation of the nature of the events or activities, the beginning and 
ending dates for the events or activities, and a copy of any itinerary for the events or activities. 
Furthermore, section 214(c)(6)(A)(i) of the Act requires the petitioner to submit an advisory opinion 
from a peer group or a labor organization. See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D) and 214.2(0)(5). If 
the petitioner establishes that an appropriate peer group or labor organization does not exist, then a 
petition may be adjudicated without the advisory opinion. See Section 214( c )( 6)( C) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(G). 
1 The Director's decision ultimately found those issues to be dispositive and did not address whether the Petitioner has 
submitted sufficient documentary evidence showing the Beneficiary received either "a major, internationally recognized 
award, such as a Nobel Prize," or at least three of eight listed categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
As it relates to a beneficiary, section 10l(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 10l(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Contract 
The Petitioner, a tennis trammg center, filed Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
seeking to classify 
the Beneficiary as an 0-1 individual of extraordinary ability as a tennis coach. In 
its initial letter, the Petitioner stated that "we have offered the position of Senior Tennis instrnctor to 
[ the Beneficiary]. Thus, we have signed an exclusive agreement for him to work as a Tennis Instructor 
for our Center." Although the Petitioner affirmatively stated that it has an executed agreement with 
the Beneficiary, it did not submit a copy of that document, nor did it claim to have an oral agreement 
with the Beneficiary and provide a summary of its terms. 
The Director's request for evidence (RFE) requested additional evidence to include, among other 
items, that the Petitioner provide "[w ]ritten contracts, or the summary of the terms of an oral 
agreement" that must "[ s ]pecify the wage offered and explain the terms and conditions under which 
the beneficiary will perform these services; and [ d]etail any additional services provided." The RFE 
advised that the regulation requires a written contract or, ifthere is no such contract, a summary of the 
terms of the oral agreement under which the Beneficiary will be employed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(B). Within its RFE response, the Petitioner provided an undated Employment 
2 See also Matter of Chawathe, 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 
Contract Agreement, signed only by the Petitioner. The Director denied the petition, finding that 
although the Petitioner proposes to employ the Beneficiary, the record contained no evidence that the 
Petitioner had executed a contract with the Beneficiary, as asserted. 
On appeal, the Petitioner urges that the provided Employment Contract Agreement includes 
requirements for a valid contract, such as "the parties (Employer and Employee), duties and 
responsibilities, pay and compensation, benefits, and other sections," but the Petitioner indicates the 
agreement does not contain the Beneficiary's signature because "the signature is deferred with the 
intention to finalize it as soon as permission to work in the United States is granted through the 
requested visa." 3 Based on the documentation submitted, we agree with the Director's determination 
that the Petitioner did not satisfy the general evidentiary requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(B). 
The Petitioner did not submit a contract between the two parties with the initial petition, although it 
represented that it had an executed agreement with the Beneficiary. 
While its RFE response provided an Employment Contract Agreement, that evidence does not satisfy 
the requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B). As the Director noted, the agreement was 
not signed by the Beneficiary and is not dated. Assuming the Employment Contract Agreement had 
been signed by the Beneficiary, it contains no information to indicate that it was in effect at the time 
the petition was filed. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Nor does the Petitioner indicate that the Employment Contract 
Agreement represents the terms of a pre-existing oral agreement between the two parties. 
Any failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). Here, the requested evidence was material to the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. Without any evidence of a contract or similar documents as required under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B), USCIS is unable to determine the actual terms and conditions of the 
Beneficiary's employment. Because the Petitioner did not meet the contractual requirement, we need 
not make a determination on the other grounds for denial in the Director's decision. Accordingly, we 
reserve those issues.4 Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility 
for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 Although the Petitioner provides additional documentation on appeal, it did not explain if, or how, the evidence relates 
or addresses the Director's findings regarding the contractual, event, and consultation requirements. Regardless, we will 
not consider new eligibility claims or evidence for the first time on appeal. See Matter ofSoriano, 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 of 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). Here, the Director afforded the Petitioner an opportunity to present additional evidence 
through the issuance of a request for evidence. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to results they reach"); see Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is othe1wise ineligible). 
3