dismissed O-1A Case: Wrestling

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 2 3 2015 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/fo rms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
;;:0� 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Acting Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a New York-based law firm, filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as 
an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The 
petitioner requests that the beneficiary be granted 0-1 classification for a period of two years1 so 
that he may accept employment as a wrestling coach in the United States with the 
2 
After issuing a request for evidence (RFE) and then considering the evidence of record, the acting 
director denied the petition. The acting director determined that the petitioner did not establish that 
the beneficiary has received "sustained national or international acclaim" in his field of endeavor. 
Specifically, the acting director determined that the evidence submitted did not satisfy the criterion 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The acting director declined to 
treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to us for review. On appeal, the petitioner 
requests approval of the petition and submits a brief and additional evidence. 
I. The Law 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(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 extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be 
highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: "Extraordinary ability in the field 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. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the beneficiary's 
achievements in the field through evidence of a major internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit 
sufficient qualifying evidence that satisfies at least three of the eight categories of evidence listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J)-(8). If the petitioner demonstrates that certain criteria in 
paragraph (o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the 
1 The petition indicates the dates of intended employment for the beneficiary as December 2, 2013 
to December I, 2013. The itinerary and employment agreements indicate that the beneficiar y's 
dates of intended employment are from December 2, 2013 to December 1, 2015. 
2 This entity is also referred to as ' in the record. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page3 
petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In addition, we 
have held that, "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
director must examine each piece· of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to 
be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Finally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(2)(iv)(E) addresses situations in which agents serve as petitioners: 
A United States agent may file a petition in cases involving workers who are 
traditionally self-employed or workers who use agents to arrange short-term 
employment on their behalf with numerous employers, and in cases where a foreign 
employer authorizes the agent to act on its behalf. A United States agent may be: 
the actual employer of the beneficiary; the representative of both the employer and 
the beneficiary; or, a person or entity authorized by the employer to act for, or in 
place of, the employer as its agent. A petition filed by a United States agent is 
subject to the following conditions: 
(1) An agent performing the function of an employer must specify the wage 
offered and the other terms and conditions of employment by contractual 
agreement with the beneficiary or beneficiaries. The agent/employer must 
also provide an itinerary of definite employment and information on any 
other services planned for the period of time requested. 
(2) A person or company in the business as an agent may file the P petition 
involving multiple employers as the representative of both the employers 
and the beneficiary or beneficiaries if the supporting documentation includes 
a complete itinerary of services or engagements. The itinerary shall specify 
the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the 
actual employers, the names and addresses of the establishment, venues or 
locatio ns where the se rvices will be performed. In questionable cases, a 
contract between the employer(s) and the beneficiary or beneficiaries may 
be required. The burden is on the agent to explain the terms and conditions 
of the employment and to provide any required documentation. 
II. Discussion 
A Extraordinary Ability in Athletics 
The record consists of: the Form I-129 petition and supporting evidence; the acting director's request 
for evidence dated December 12, 2013, and the petitioner's response; and, the acting director's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
decision dated April 25, 2014. We have reviewed the evidence of record in its entirety in reaching 
our decision. 
The record indicates that the beneficiary is a year-old wrestler who has competed as a wrestler 
between 1995 and 2004, winning several state/national youth judo championships and several 
college wrestling championships. The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a wrestling coach. The petitioner requests that the beneficiary be granted 
0-1 classification so that he may accept employment as a wrestling coach in the United States with 
the The 
beneficiary 's employment agreement with 
club associated with 
indicates that is an amateur wrestling 
According to the benefi ciary's employment agreement with which the 
beneficiary signed on November 26, 2013 and November 19, 2013, respectively, the beneficiary's 
duties in the United States for both will include the following: 
[The beneficiary] agrees to be responsible for supervising practices for 25-40 students and 
attending tournaments .. .. [The beneficiary] will also assist in creating a healthy 
competitive environment according to policies and procedures stipulated by l and 
] 
The acting director denied the petition on April 25, 2014, concluding that the petitioner did not 
establish that the beneficiary has satisfied at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
While a competitive wrestler and a wrestling coach share knowledge of the sport of wrestl ing, the 
two rely on different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitiv e wrestling and wrestling 
coaching/ins truction are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in 
Federal Court. InLee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary 
ability" as working in the sam e profession in which one has extraordinary ability, 
not necessa rily in any profession in that field. For example, Lee 's extraordinary 
ability as a baseball player does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in 
all positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or 
coach. 
Id. at 918. 
The statute requires that the beneficiary seek entry into the United States "to continue work in the 
area of extraordinary ability. " Section 10l (a)(15)(0 )(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
(2007). United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will not assume that an alien 
with extraordinary ability as an athlete has the same level of expertise as a coach or instructor of 
his or her sport. However, given the nexus between athletic competition and coaching or sport s 
instruction, in a case where the beneficiary has achieved recent national or international acclaim as 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at a national or international level, 
an adjudicator may consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of 
sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that it can be concluded that coaching is within 
the beneficia ry's area of experti se. Specifically, in such a case, USCIS will consider the level at 
which the beneficiary acts as a coach. In this matter, the beneficiary's athletic accomplishments 
are not recent and he has been coaching for several years. Accordingly, we will address the 
evidence regarding the beneficiary's accomplishme nts as a wrestl ing coach. 
For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
1. Consideration of the Evidentiary Criteria 3 
If the petitioner esta blishes through the sub mission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary 
has received a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), 
then it will have submitted the requisite initial evidence pertainin g to the beneficiary's acclaim and 
recognit ion. The regulations cite to the Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. !d. Here, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally 
recognized award; nor has the petitioner asserted that the benefici ary satisfies this criterio n. 
Therefore, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight 
criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
After careful review ·of the record and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility under three of the eight evidentiary criteria under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
To meet criterion number one, the petitioner must submit documentation of the beneficiary's 
receipt of nation ally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l). The acting director determined that the petitioner did 
not establish that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
As evidence of the beneficiary's achievement s as an athlete, the petitioner indicates that the 
beneficiary received the following awards: 
• 
• 
• 
3 The petitioner does not claim to satisfy or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of 
evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted copies of documentary evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of the above­
referenced prizes. The prizes the beneficiary has received establish that he has awards from 
several state/national judo competitions, all at the junior level of competition, several college 
wrestling competitions, and a corporate-sponsored men's wrestling competitio n of unknown 
signific ance in the field. 
A competition may be open to athletes from throughout a partic ular country or countries, but this 
factor alone is not adequate to establish that an award or prize is "nat ionally or internationally 
recognized." The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition associated 
with the beneficiar y's awards. The petitioner has not submitted supporting documentary evidence, 
such as official entry requirements from the sponsoring organizations of these events or published 
articles about the events in trade or general media, to establish the significance of the events withi n 
the sport. Overall, the evidence of record is insuffi cient to est ablish that the beneficiary's 
competition victories resulted in his receipt of nationally or inter nationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in competitive wrestling and, as such, do not sati sfy the plain language of 
the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
The petitioner has submitted participation certif icates indicating that the beneficiary coached in the 
following competitions: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The record also contains results for a May 11-13, 2012 event, but does not contain a certificate 
confirming the benefi ciary's services as a coach at that event. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate indicating that in November 2013 the beneficiary passed 
a course in Freestyle wrestli ng at the 
_ 
The petitioner did not establish that the above certificates themselves are 
nationally or internati onally recognized awards or prizes. 
The petitioner has also submitted copies of awards for athletes one of the petitione r's references 
identifies as coached by the beneficiary. The plain language of this regulatory criterion, however, 
requires evidence of "the alien's receipt" of nationally or internati onally' recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The submitted awards were not received by the 
beneficia ry, and the record contains no evidence of any nationally or internationally recognized 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page7 
awards the beneficiary has received as a coach. The petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary satisfies this criterion . 
The next issue is whether the achievements of the benefic iary's students should be considered 
under this criterion as comparable evidence of the beneficiary's extraordinary ability, pursuant to 8 
C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). The burden is on the petitioner to show that the evidence submitted as 
comparable is comparable to the evidence the crite rion describes. Accordingly, the peti tioner can 
rely on comparable evidence if it can establish that the beneficiary has coached athletes who have 
received nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the sport. Upon review, 
the record contains insuffi cient evidenc e to establish that the beneficiary has instructed or coached 
players who have won national or international competitions or ot her nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for wrestling excellence. 
The beneficiary's coaching experience was documented through coaching certi fic ates and 
testimonial evidence. The coaching certifi cates do not identify the athletes the benefic iary was 
coaching. The petitioner submitted a letter from a represent ative of Delhi, 
certifyin g that the club employed the beneficiary from April 1, 2012 to March 2013, and stating 
"[the benefici ary's coaching was exemplary, and his students become [sic] acclaimed athletes with 
his exceptional training. Under [the beneficiary 's] dynamic coaching, more than 50 wrestlers won 
medals at National and International competitions ." The petitioner further submitted a letter from 
of the _ . Delhi, certifying that the school employed the 
beneficiary from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2013, and stating that "[the beneficia ry's] service was 
found exceptional and the best in his field. . . Under his training, more than 100 students won 
medals in National and International Wrestling competitions." The letters do not identif y any 
athletes the beneficiary coached, nor do they identify any specific victories at national or 
international competitions. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not 
sat isfy the peti tioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E. D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates J Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 
188942 at *5 (S. D.N.Y.). 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from . President of the 
. certifying that the beneficiary "was nominated as Coach of 
Wrestling Team for participation in the ... Junior National Wrestling Championship held at .. . 
from 9th to 12th May, 2013." further stated as follows: 
Under the dynamic supervision of [the benefici ary] as a Coach of the Team, the 
Junior Free Style, Greco Roman Style and Female Wrestling Teams won 4 Gold, 3 Silver 
& 7 Bronze Medals. The Free Style Team was team Champion by winning 3 Gold & 3 
Silver and 1 Bronze Medal in the Championship. The Greco Roman Style and Female 
Team got third place by winning 1 Gold & 3 Bronze Medals in GR and 3 Bronze Medals in 
FW. 
In a letter, , Technical Director, 
_ 
_ . , the national 
governing body of wrestling in India, asserts that the beneficiary "has coached wrestl ers who 
regularly compete at a national level and who have won national awards." He then summarizes the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
competition victories of _ _ and attributes the 
success of these athletes to the benefici ary's coaching the athletes at their respective events. 
concludes that "[t] here is no doubt that [the beneficiary] who has obtained significant 
success himself has also led a number of athletes to obtain national recognition and awards." 
As stated above, the petitioner additionally submitted awards won by athletes 
ident ifies as coached by the beneficiary at two junior competitions held in India in 2012 and 2013, 
respecti vely, as follows: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The record also contains a junior award certification for but the record does not establish 
that the beneficiary coached While printouts indicate that a ' had first and 
second finishes at senior events in 2011 and 2012, the record contains no evidence that the 
beneficiary is the coach of this _ especially as the award certificate the petitioner 
submitted for the the beneficiary coached shows him competing at the junior level in 2013. 
Regarding the gold, silver and bronze finishes of the athletes and team that 
_ 
discuss, the petitioner has not established the significance of the competitions. While the 
record supports a finding that the individual athlet es and team were successful in wrestling 
competition in the age/weight category, the evidence of record does not establish that the gold, silver 
and bronze finishes in junior national competitions in India constitute "nati onally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field" pursuant to the plain language of the criterion. 
While the petitioner did submit printouts from the website, 
list ing the dates and results of the events, the submitted 
evidence does not establish that the awards rise to the level of "nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards." Upon review, while it appears that the beneficiary has participated in 
coaching promising young athletes, the evidence of record does not establish that the wrestlers 
identifies as coached by the beneficiary have achieved nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards. 
letter also states that the beneficiary coached 
now competing internationally while representing India." 
The petitioner asserts as follows: 
a competitor who is 
one of the wrestlers [the beneficiary] coached, is now competing at the 
international level, and has won bronze medals at the 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Championships of 2013 and at the _ Championships of 20 13, both in the 
category of Men's Free Style, weight class 60 kg. Therefore, [the beneficiary's] coaching 
in the previous year played an integral part in preparing for his future international 
success. 
Upon, review, statement is too vague to corroborate the petitioner 's statement that 
success is attributable to the beneficiary 's coaching. letter does not 
indicate when or for how long the beneficiary coached _ won any 
nationally or internationally recognized awards while primarily under the benefic iary's tutelage. 
letter is accompanied by an article dated September 17, 2013, published on the 
Internet site entitled 
Although it appears that has competed at the national/in ternational 
level, there is no evidence that such success occurred while primarily under the beneficiary's tutelage. 
does not state that the beneficiary ever served as his personal or team coach or trainer, 
in fact, the article does not mention the beneficiary by name. The record does not contain 
suffi cient evidence of the coach-athlete relationship between the beneficiary and the successful 
athlete he is alleged to have coached. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the 
assertions of counsel will not satis fy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
The petitioner further submitted charts from the highlighting the competition results for all 
athletes competing on behalf of Delhi in the competitions described above, in which the 
beneficiary participated as a coach in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that the beneficiary "trained wrestlers in preparation for" all those events. However, the 
record does not contain any corroborati ng evidence that the beneficiary may have coached any 
wrestlers other than those identifies. 
For the reasons previously discussed, the record is lacking in documentation of the nationally or 
internationally-recognized achievements in the sport of wrestling of individual athletes coached by 
the beneficiary. Accordingly, this evidence does not constitute comparable evidence sufficient to 
satisfy this criterion. 
In sum, the petitioner has not established that the benefic iary has received nationally or 
interna tionally recognized awards for excellence in coaching or that he has coached athletes who 
have received such awards while primarily under his tutelage. Upon review, the submitted 
evidence does not satis fy the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
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 
To meet the third criterion, the petitioner must submit published material in professional or major 
trade publications or major media about the beneficiary, relating to the beneficiary's work in the field 
for which classifi cation is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published 
material, and any necessary translation and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as ma jor media, the publication should 
have significant national or international distr ibution. The acting director determined that the 
petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
The petitioner 's initial evidence contained two articles referencing the beneficiary's work as a 
wrestling coach. The petitioner submitted an article entitled ' 
[the Beneficiary]," which states as follows: 
The second article the petitioner submitted is entitled " 
The piain language of the regulation requires "that the published material shall include the title, date, 
and author of the material; the second article referenced above does not include the author of the 
material. 
In response to RFE, the petitioner asserte d: 
Two arti cles on [the beneficiary] regarding his activities and success as a wrestling coach have 
been published in ma jor media . . . These artic les were printed in the daily Hindi/English 
language newspaper ... These artic les note [the beneficiary's] international 
recognition for his success as a wrestling coach, having trained successful wrestlers in both 
India and the United States. 
The petitioner submitted additional copies of the arti cles in response to the RFE, indicating that the 
artic les appear in the publication however, the petitioner did not document the 
circulation or distribution of the publication. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a 2014 foreign-language article published on the website 
entitled ' As previously stated, the plain language of 
the regulation requires "that the published material shall include the title, date, and author of the 
material"; however, the translation does not include the author of the material. 
Further, the petitioner submitted two foreign-language articles about the beneficiary's work as a 
wrestling coach in India and his anticipated work with the petitioner in the United States. The first 
artic le, enti tled · 
_ 
was published in September 
2014 in The second article entitled ' 
was published in the fortnightly issue of August 1-15, 2014, of the Indian 
newspaper The petitioner did not document the circulation or distribution of 
the publications that published the three articles the petitioner submits on appeal. 
Finally, the three articles the petitioner submits on appeal are not relevant to the issue of the 
beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought at the time of filing, because the articles were 
published after November 29, 2013, the date of filing the petition. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(12). 
The petitioner must establish the beneficia ry's eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant 
visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or 
benefici ary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 
248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Upon review, the submitted evidence does not sati sfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
The seventh criterion requires the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary has been employed in a 
critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)( iii)(B)(7). The acting director determined that the petitioner did not 
establish that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted the previous letter from . President of , indicating that the 
beneficiary "was nominated" as coach of the Wrestling Team for participation in the 
Junior National Wrestling Championship held at in May 2013. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's position as a coach for was critical and essential 
because the beneficiary "was responsible for the instruction and preparation of wrestlers for 
competition in national-level competitions and championships." Upon review, there is no evidence 
that the beneficiary was ever formally employed by the organization or that his position with the 
organization was in a critical or essential capacity. 
Similarly, while are organizations with a distinguished reputation in the sport, there is 
no evidence that the beneficiary was ever formally employed by either in a critical or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page.12 
essential capacity. At most, it appears that the beneficiary attended and passed 
School for Coaches course while in the United States on a nonimmigrant tourist visa. 
While the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary was employed by the 
Advanced 
the evidence does not establish that the beneficiary was 
employed by those organizations in a critical or essential capacity. The scope of this evidentiary 
criterion focuses on the beneficiary and the relative importance of his position within the 
organizations that have employed him, such as evidence establishing how the beneficiary's coaching 
position related to other coaching positions in the organizations, the number of coaches employed or 
how many of the coaches took athletes to national events. Further, the record does not contain any 
evidence that either organization has a distinguished reputation in the sport of wrestling. 
Based on the forgoing, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that 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 
Preliminarily, the petitioner asserts on appeal that the acting director erred by determining in the 
RFE that this criterion was satisfied, then determining in her decision that this criterion was not 
satisfied. The petitioner contends that its right to due process was violated, because the acting 
director's RFE did not provide the petitioner an opportunity to submit additional information to 
satisfy this criterion before the petition was denied. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(ii) 
gives the director the discretion to deny a petition without issuing an RFE if the initial evidence 
does not establish eligibility. Even if the acting director had committed a procedural error by not 
soliciting further evidence, it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal 
process itself. The petitioner has in fact supplemented the record on appeal, and therefore it would 
serve no useful purpose to remand the case simply to afford the petitioner the opportunity to 
supplement the record with new evidence. We review each appeal on a de novo basis. Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we will consider all evidence pertaining to 
this criterion. 
Regarding the beneficiary's past salary, the petitioner submitted a letter from a representative of 
Delhi, certifying that the club employed the beneficiary from April 1, 2012 to 
March 31 2013, at an annual salary of 20 Lakh (lakh rupees), the equivalent of 2 million rupees. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from of the Delhi, 
certifying that the school employed the beneficiary from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2013, and 
stating that beneficiary was paid 16 Lakh (1.6 million rupees) for the 2011-2012 payment period, 
and 17.60 Lakh (1.76 million rupees) for the payment period 2012-2013. 
The petitioner submitted an article from the website www .artides.timesofindia.indiatimes.com 
entitled "Many Pvt. School. Teachers Eyeing Govt Jobs." However, this article discusses teachers 
seeking academic coaches to advance their teaching skills in India generally, and not athletic coaches. 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that a comparison of the beneficiary's salary as a wrestling 
coach with the salaries mentioned in the article is meaningful. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
The petitioner submitted an article from the website www .india.blogs.nytimes.com entitled "India's 
Olympic Program Under Spotlight Again," discussing India's recent performance in the London 
Olympics, and reporting as follows: 
India's sports ministry recently promised that all 81 Olympians in India's contingent this year 
would receive permanent government jobs. It is understood that these will be midlevel 
coaching jobs with a salary of 40,000 rupees ($715) a month at India's premier sporting 
institution, the Sports Authority of India. The athlete can continue with their sporting careers 
and then get a diploma in coaching before they start working as coaches. 
This article does not provide a description of the occupation, such as what sports are contemp lated, 
other than to state that it is "understood that these will be midlevel coaching jobs." Again, the 
petitioner has not established that a comparison of the beneficiary's salary as a wrestling coach with 
the salary mentioned in the article is meaningful. In addition, the petitioner submitted a job posting 
job posting from the Delhi, for a fulltime "Coach Grade- ill (Wrestling)-
. 
2012," indicating a pay scale of "Rs. 9300 -34,800- plus Grade Pay Rs.4200." The frequency of 
payment of the quoted wage and the quoted Grade Pay are not noted. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "the Indian government does not have direct resources 
indicating the average wage for a wrestling coach." Nevertheless, to evaluate whether the salary is 
high, USCIS needs to compare it to the median and highest wages offered nationwide to wrestling 
coaches. The petitioner has provided the wages for one wrestling coach position in Delhi as a 
basis to judge the benefic iary's past wage as a wrestling coach. The petitioner 's reliance on data 
limited to one position in Delhi is not an appropriate basis for comparison in demonst rating that 
the beneficiary 's past earnings constituted a high salary compared to oth ers in the field . 
Regarding the benefic iary's wage for the proffered position, the petition er did not indicate the 
benefici ary's weekly or annual wage on the Form I-129 petiti on. The petitioner submitted a copy 
of contract with the beneficiary for the term beginning on December 2, 2013, and ending 
on December 1, 2015, indicating that will pay the beneficiary an annual salary of $40,000. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of contract with the beneficiary, indicating that the 
position is part-time for the term beginning on December 2, 2013, and ending on December 1, 
2014, and indicating that will pay the beneficiary an annual salary of $20,000. 
With regard to the salaries the beneficiary will receive, the petitioner submitte d salary information for 
the occupation of "Coaches and Scouts" from O*NET OnLine (www.oneto nline.org). The data 
provided is for the U.S. nationally for 2012 and indicates that the median salary for the occupation is 
$28,360, but the material does not provide the 90th percentile wages. 
The petitioner also submitted an article from the Internet website www .minnesot a.cbs.local.com, 
discussing the average high school coaching salaries in Minnesota. Reliance on data limited to the 
state of Minnesota is not an appropriate basis for comparison in demonstrating that the 
beneficiary's future earnings constitute a high salary compared to others in the fie ld. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Finally, the petitioner submitted salary information from the website www.simplyhired.com stating 
that as of November 21, 2013, the "Average Head High School Wrestling Coach" salary is 
$15,000. The data provided indicates the average salary for the occupation, but the material does not 
provide the 90'h percentile wages. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8) requires the petitioner to 
submit evidence showing that the beneficiary will earn a "high salary." Average or median salary 
information is not a proper basis for comparison. Accordingly, as the petitioner has not provided 
meaningful comparisons to the beneficiary's past and proposed salary, the submitted evidence does 
not meet the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). 
2. Summary 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restricti ve. 
See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 
classification, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is "at the very top" of his field of 
endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). While we have considered the recommendations submitted, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's achievements have already risen to this level. The 
petitioner has not presented the type of sustained national or international recognition of 
accomplishments necessary for 0-1 classification through the satisfaction of at least three of the 
regulatory criteria. 
B. Itinerary 
Beyond the decision of the acting director, although the petitioner identifies itself as the 
beneficiary's "agent for immigration purposes," it has clearly not satisf ied the regulatory 
requirements to file the petition on behalf of the beneficiary and multiple employers. Pursuant to 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(E)(2) a person or company in business as an agent may file the petition 
involving multiple employers as the representative of both the employers and the beneficiary, if the 
supporting documentation includes a complete itinerary of events, the dates of each service or 
engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers and the names and addresses of the 
establishments, venues, or locations where the services will be performed. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of letters dated November 26, 2013, from 
and November 19, 2013, from� authorizing 
the petitioner to serve as their agent in filing the petition. On the 0 and P Classification 
Supplement to the Form I-129 petition, where asked to indicate the nature of the event, the 
petitioner indicated "See Attac hed." The itinerary submitted by the petitioner states as follows: 
Service One: 
Dates: 12/02/13 and ending 12/01/15 
Name and Address of Entity-
-----, 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
Service Two: 
Dates: 12/02/13 and ending 12/01/14 
N arne and Address of Entity -
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The question of whether a petitioner is required to submit an itinerary is dictated entirely by 
regulation, which requires a petitioner to show that an 0-1 beneficiary is entering the United St ates 
for definite, non-speculative, employment by submitt ing an itinerary or a specific explanation of 
the events or activities scheduled for the beneficiary. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C). This 
requirement exists because "0 classif ication may not be granted to an alien merely to enter the 
United States to freelance and seek employment," but must only be admitted "to perform in 
specific events as detailed on the initial petition." 59 Fed. Reg. at 41828. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not complied with the regulatory requirements for an agent, in that 
it has not submitted an itiner ary of the beneficiary's services or engagements. The beneficiary's 
wrestling coach agreements with are noted. While the beneficiary may have 
employment commitments with those organizations, the petitioner is not relieved of its regulatory 
obligation as the agent on an 0-1 petition to submit a detailed itinerary of the beneficiary's services 
or engagements with the dates and locations of the work. The petitioner did not provide an itinerary 
of the beneficiaries' service dates and locations of the work. For example, the itinerary does not 
indicate the days of the week the beneficiary will work for each employer and explain how they 
will share his services. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F.Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), aff'd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). The petition will be denied on this 
additional basis. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
III. Conclusion 
The petitioner submitted no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally 
recognized award and the documentation submitted does not meet three of the eight other 
evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation 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)(iv)(C). The evidence shows that the benef iciary is a 
skilled wrestling coach. Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has 
not established that the beneficiary has extraordinary ability as a wrestling coach, which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation, as required by section 101(a)(15)(0) of 
the Act. 
In addition, the petitioner has not complied with the regulatory requirements for an agent, in that it 
has not submitted a detailed itinerary with the dates and locations of the beneficiary's work. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(E)(2). For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
Consequently, the beneficiary is not eligible for nonimmigrant classification under section 
101(a)(15)(0) of the Act. For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it 
is the petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.