dismissed O-1B Case: Horse Training

(b)(6)
Date: JUN 1 2 2014 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Ocpartrn cnt of Hom ela nd Secu rity 
U.S. Cit izenship and Imm igra tion Services 
Ad mi nistrativ e Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 M assachusetts Ave .• N.\V., IVIS 2090 
Washi riQ:ton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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-2908) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms 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. 
Th 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Vermont Service Center Director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition as an agent, seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1B 
alien with extraordinary ability in the arts under section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(0)(i). The petitioner, a law firm and sports agent, requests that the 
beneficiary be granted 0-1B classific;;ttion so that he may be employed as a horse trainer by the beneficiary 's 
company, LLC, for a period of five years. 1 
The director denied the petition, in part, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary qualifies 
as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director also denied the petition, finding that the beneficiary is 
self-petitioning, which is impermissible pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(2)(i). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the submitted evidence establishes the beneficiary's qualification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner does not contest or address the director's finding that 
the beneficiary is self-petitioning, and therefore the AAO considers this issue to be abandoned.
2 
The 
petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence in support of its claim that the beneficiary is an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. 
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. 
Section 101(a)(46) of the Act states that the term "extraordinary ability" means, for purposes of section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i), in the case of the arts, distinction. 
Pursuant to the definition at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(ii) pertaining to aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts, 
"distinction" means a high level of achievement in the arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition 
substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, 
leading, or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv) states, in pertinent part: 
1 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(6)(iii), an approved petition for an alien classified under section 
101(a)(15)(0) of the Act shall be valid for a period of time determined by the director to be necessary to 
accomplish the event or activity, not to exceed 3 years. 
2 See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 P.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *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). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidentiary criteria for an O-j alien of extraordinwy ability in the arts. To qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the field of arts, the alien must be recognized as being prominent in his 
or her field of endeavor as demonstrated by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the alien has been nominated for, or the recipient of, significant national 
or international awards or prizes in the particular field such as an Academy Award, an 
Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(1) Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, services as a lead or 
starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reput ation 
as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity relea ses, publications , 
contracts, or endorsements; 
(2) Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or 
about the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other 
publications; 
(3) Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or 
critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals , publications, or 
testimonials; 
(4) Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, 
box office receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and other occupational 
achievements reported in trade journals, major newspapers , or other 
publications; 
(5) Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the 
field in which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form which 
clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's 
achievements; or 
(6) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a 
high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in 
the field, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence; or 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(C) If the criteria w paragraph ( o )(3)(iv) 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. 
DISCUSSION 
A. The Field of Arts 
As a preliminary matter, the petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts, and contends that the beneficiary meets the standard of "distinction" under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii). 
However, we find that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is primarily involved in a creative 
activity or endeavor, such that he cannot reasonably be classified as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. 
For purposes of the 0-1 classification, the applicable definition of "arts" at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) is as 
follows: 
Arts includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as, but not limited to, fine arts, 
visual arts, culinary arts, and performing arts. Aliens engaged in the field of arts inClude not 
only the principal creators and performers but other essential persons such as, but not limited 
to, directors, set designers, lighting designers, sound designers, choreographers, 
choreologists, conductors, orchestrators, coaches, arrangers, musical supervisors, costume 
designers, makeup artists, flight masters , stage technicians and animal trainers . 
While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) specifically includes animal trainers as an example within 
the field of the arts, not all types of animal trainers can properly be classified as within the field of the arts. 
As noted in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), the definition of "arts" focuses on "any field of creative activity or 
endeavor." Thus, certain types of animal training, such as animal acts and circuses, would reasonably be 
among this group of creative workers in the performing arts. Other types of animal training, however, such as 
of animals engaged exclusively in competitive racing, would not be among this group . 
The nature of the intended events or activities in the United States is critical in determining whether the 
beneficiary is entering the United States to provide services in the arts. Here, the beneficiary will provide 
"the 
finest training and the highest level of care to ensure that these valuable animals win races and produce a 
return on their investment. " According to the petitioner ' s initial letter, the beneficiary's duties are listed as, 
among others: evaluating each horse accepted into training for its conformation, condition, history and 
pedigree; tailoring an individual training program for each horse that encompasses its health, nutrition and 
fitness; closely monitoring each of the horses in training; overseeing practice starts, interval training, breezing 
and speed exercises; supervising exercise riders, grooms and other staff; checking and wrapping legs several 
times per day; communicating with the horse ' s owners; making decisions regarding which horse to run in 
which race; selecting the appropriate jockey; developing racing strategies for race day; coordinating 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
communications with owners, race officials , the other trainers, the veterinarians, the farriers (blacksmiths) , the 
exercise riders, agents, jockeys and grooms; and generally running the business and attracting new clients. 
Based on the nature of the beneficiary's intended employment in the United States , we cannot conclude that 
the beneficiary can be included among individuals engaged in the arts or a field of "creative activity or 
endeavor." The beneficiary's specific duties show that he will not create, perform, or serve as an essential 
personnel to a "creative activity," but instead will evaluate, monitor, supervise, and tailor programs for horses 
used solely for competitive horse racing. The petitioner failed to demonstrate how beneficiary's duties could 
be considered a "creative activity or endeavor," and more importantly, how horses engaged solely in 
competitive racing is a creative endeavor under the field of arts. The petitioner 's request to classify the 
beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts is, thus, improper. 
As the beneficiary is coming to the United States to train race horses and operate his business in competitive 
horse racing, the petitioner should have requested review of the petition according to the regulatory criteria 
applicable to the field of business or athletics at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii). 
The regulations clearly prescribe different evidentiary criteria and standards of review for aliens of extraordinary 
ability in the arts, as opposed to aliens of extraordinary ability in business or athletics. The regulation at 8 C.P.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 extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification 
are intended to be highly restrictive for aliens in the fields of business , education, athletics, and the sciences . 
See 59 FR 41818, 41819 (August 15, 1994); 137 Cong. Rec. S18242 , 18247 (daily ed., Nov . 26, 1991) 
(comparing and discussing the lower standard for the arts). 
However, a petitioner sponsoring an 0-1 athlete or businessman cannot seek consideration of the petition 
under the lower standard of "distinction " by mischaracterizing the beneficiary 's field as arts, whether by 
mistake or intention. The petitioner has not sought the correct 0-1 visa classification for the beneficiary, nor 
has it claimed or submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary meets the criteria and standards for 
individuals of extraordinary ability in business or athletics as set forth at 8 C.P.R . § 214.2(o)(iii)(A) or (B). 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed for this additional reason. 
B. Consideration of Evidentiary Criteria and Extraordinary Ability in the Arts 
The director appropriately reviewed the petition according to the classification requested on the Form I-129. 
USCIS will only consider the visa classifications that the petitioner annotates on the petition. The Ninth 
Circuit has determined that once USCIS concludes that an alien is not eligible for the specifically requested 
classification, the agency is not required to consider, sua sponte, whether the alien is eligible for an alternate 
classification. Brazil Quality Stones, Inc., v. Chertoff, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2743927 (9th Cir. July 10, 2008). 
As the director did not raise the foregoing issue in her decision, we will nevertheless review the petitioner's 
claim that it satisfied the evidentiary requirements and lower standard of "distinction " applicable to aliens of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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. at 41820; cf Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) (discussing a 
two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under at least three criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination). 
A petitioner may establish eligibility for 0-1B classification by submitting documentary evidence that meets 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), or at least three of the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). The petitioner does not assert, and the record does not reflect, eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) . Thus , the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the 
six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
The petitioner submits evidence that he asserts is related to the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l), (2), (3), (4), and (5).3 In denying the petition, the director determined that the evidence 
submitted does not meet any of the regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). After review of the 
record, and for the reasons discussed herein, we agree with the director that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary meets any of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B). 
1. Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation as evidenced by 
critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications contracts, or endorsements 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l), the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary "has had a lead 
role in the sense that he has been a vital player performing critical services at events, and the 'events ' are major 
horse races with distinguished reputations." Specifically, the petitioner claims that the horses trained by the 
beneficiary have competed at the following graded stakes:
4 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
3 The petitioner raises no objection to the director's determination that the petitioner did not submit evidence 
of eligibility under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). Therefore this criterion will not be 
discussed in this decision. 
4 The petitioner explains that the most competitive, highest level races in the United States, Great Britain, and 
Europe are "graded stakes races," graded 1, 2, and 3, with Grade 1 (also identified as Gr-1, G-1, G-I, or Group 1) 
being the highest level. 
5 As will be discussed infra, 
before the beneficiary's employment with 
horse profile reflects that this race was competed in June 2007, 
who is listed as the trainer in the horse 's profile. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• ~--------------------------------------------------~ 
As evidence under this criterion, the petitioner submitted, inter alia: the horse profiles and/or race records for the 
horses the beneficiary purportedly has trained; letters from the beneficiary's former employers 
and and screen shots, from the websites of and 
The etitioner submitted horse profiles and/or race records for 
and These documents list the beneficiary 's former employer, 
as the trainer for 
an< 8 In addition, these profiles list the beneficiary's former employer. 
-~----
as the 
trainer for and 
C) 
The letter from owner of Ltd., confirms that the beneficiary worked for 
him as "one of [his] Assistant Trainers from 2007 until late 2010." Mr. elaborates that the beneficiary's 
duties as Assistant Trainer included responsibility for the care, training, and development of about 30 horses out 
of approximately 150 in training, which involved working the horse on the gallops, and doing cantering and fast 
work. Mr. explains that , in training operations of a certain level of size and sophistication, "it is 
imperative to employ the very best assistant trainers available in order to grow and continue to win." He states: 
"With the help of extremely skilled assistant trainers I have been able to produce a steady stream of winning 
6 As will be discussed infra, horse profile and racing record do not list a 
" The website of reflects that won a race 1n 10 
2006. Assuming arguendo that these are the same race, this race was competed in 2006, before the 
beneficiary's employment with who is listed as the trainer in the horse ' s profile. 
7 As will be discussed infra, the horse profiles reflect that this race was competed in Jun e 3, 2006 and Jun e 1, 
2007 by and in June 1, 2007 by all before the beneficiary 's employment with 
who is listed as the trainer in the horse's profile. In addition, while the petitioner claims this 
race is Gr-1, the horse profiles do not identify the grade of this race. 
8 While the race record of lists the trainer as the horse profile lists the trainer as 
Additionally, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's former employer , 
is the trainer for 
The race record o 
a subsequent change in trainers; 
discrepancies. 
and The horse profile of lists the trainer as 
lists the trainer as It is possible that these documents reflect 
however, the petitioner has not submitted an explanation for these apparent 
9 The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's former employer, is the trainer for 
The horse profile of , lists the trainer as Again , it is possible that this document reflects 
a subsequent change in trainers, however, the petitioner has not submitted an explanation for this apparent 
discrepancy . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
horses trained under my overall umbrella of training methods, management and supervision. [The beneficiary] is 
not any less of a trainer because he worked as an assistant trainer for my business or for " Mr. 
asserts that the beneficiary "can take substantial credit " for the performance of the following horses: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
14 
• 
• 
• 
The petitioner submitted a screen shot from the website of 
following winners as evidence of the beneficiary's achievements: 
• 
17 
• 
• 
18 
and 
• 
10 
.13 
' 
16 
high! ighting the 
The letter from , owner of LLC, confirms that the benefici ary worked 
for him as an Assistant Trainer from January 2011 until January 2013 . Mr. explains that he has 
approximately 100 racehorses in training at tracks across the country, and with so many horses in training across 
the country, he cannot personally work with every horse. Because of the size and scope of his operation, he relies 
on "top-notch assistant trainers" like the beneficiary to "handle the training programs on a day-to-day basis, under 
the umbrella of [his] business. " Mr. further explains that even though his name is listed on official 
racing records as the trainer of record for all horses racing from his barn, he "give[s] [the beneficiary] credit for 
the success , and disappointments , of horses specifically under his care." He then states: "During the period he 
10 See footnote 5. 
11 See footnote 6. 
12 As will be discussed infra, 
at won by 
13 The grade of this race is unknown. 
"Other Notable Winners ." 
horse profile does not list a ' ' The only race 
was Weight for Age Stakes of an unspecified grade on 2007. 
The website of lists this performance under 
14 
According to horse profile, the Gotham Stakes is Gr-3. 
15 As will be discussed infra, the website of reflects that this race was won in 
2004, prior to the beneficiary's start of employment. 
16 
horse profile does not list a ' The only track m in which 
Forgotten Voice finished first was a handicap race of an unspecified grade. 
17 See footnote 15. 
18 As will be discussed infra, this race was before the beneficiary's start of employment with 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
was with me he had significant responsibility for the following horses: 
The petitioner submitted a screen shot from the website of 
stakes winners as evidence of the beneficiary's achievements: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
and 
19 
highlighting the following 
Upon careful rev1ew of the submitted evidence, we find that the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary performed a lead role by training these stakes winners. 
Foremost, none of the official records specificallY identify the beneficiary as the actual trainer. Rather, the 
official records primarily list or as the trainers. While the petitioner asserts 
that "[i]t is known within the industry who did the actual training of any successful horse" and that "the 
Beneficiary is known in the industry as the actual trainer of numerous horses that were in training at 
Ltd. in the U.K. and at in the U.S.;" the petitioner failed to submit 
sufficient objective evidence, such as contracts, publications, and other documentary evidence tying the 
beneficiary to the horses, to corroborate these statements. We acknowledge the letters from and 
however , these letters are insufficient to establish which horses the beneficiary trained and 
when the beneficiary trained these horses. Both letters contain general language regarding the beneficiary's 
responsibilities over these horses. The letter from Mr. states broadly that the beneficiary was "one of 
[his) Assistant Trainers . . . [with] responsibility for the care, training, and development of about 30 horses out of 
approximately 150 in training," and that the beneficiary "can take substantial credit" for 
and Likewise, the 
letter from Mr. states that the beneficiary was one of his "top-notch assistant trainers," and that he "had 
significant responsibility" for and These 
letters and generalized assertions fail to establish that it was primarily the beneficiary who trained these horses for 
the specified races, as the petitioner claims. 
Moreover, there are numerous deficiencies and inconsistencies within these letters and the other evidence of 
record that further undermine the petitioner's claims. For instance, Mr. s letter indicates that the 
beneficiary was responsible for the winning performance of at the (G-1) at 
However, according to race record, this race was won on 2007, prior to 
the beneficiary's start of employment with 
beneficiary was responsible for the winning performance of 
but according to the website of 
in July 2007. Mr. s letter asserts that the 
at (G-1) in 
this race was won in 2006, also prior to the 
beneficiary ' s start of employment. On the print-out of the website of the 
19 As will be discussed infra, this race was before the beneficiary 's start of employment with 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
petitioner highlighted the 2006 winning performance of at m which , again , 
was before the beneficiary's start of employment. Mr. s letter asserts that the beneficiary was 
responsible for the winning performance of at (G-1) in but 
's horse profile does not Jist a " and the only race in won by 
was of an unspecified grade on Julv 11 2007. Mr. ' s Jetter asserts 
that the beneficiary was responsible for the winning performance of at the (G-1), 
but according to the website of this race was won in 2004, prior to the 
beneficiary's start of employment. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary was responsible for the 
winning performance of and at , but according to the 
horse profiles, these races were competed 1n une 3, 2006 and June 1, 2007 by and in June 1, 
2007 by all before the beneficiary's employment with On the screen shot 
from the website of the petitioner highlighted the winning performance of 
at the (GRIII) in 2010, but this was before the beneficiary 's start of 
employment in January 2011. 
Overall, the record contains numerous discrepancies that undermine the credibility of the petitioner's claims 
regarding the beneficiary's achievements. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in 
the record by independent objective evidence; any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will 
not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of 
the visa petition. !d. 
Finally, the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l) requires the petitioner to establish 
that the beneficiary will perform services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events which have a 
distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not explained what productions or events the beneficiary will 
perform in the United States, or that these productions or events have a distinguished reputation. 
For the reasons above, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under the plain language of 8 C.F.R. 
214.2( o )(3)(iv )(B)(l). 
2. Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for achievements 
evidenced by critical · reviews or other published materials by or about the individual in major 
newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications. 
In support of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2), the petitioner submitted online articles and 
unpublished opinion letters from sports media quoting the beneficiary. 
Opinion letters do not constitute evidence in the form of"critical reviews or other published materials by or about 
the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications," as required by the plain 
language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). The letter from editor-in-chief of 
addressed directly to USCIS and submitted specifically for the purpose of this visa request, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
does not constitute a "[statement] from Spmts Media" or "published" material under the ordinary meaning of that 
word. 
The petitioner also submitted the following online articles quoting the beneficiary: 
' published on 
published on and' published on 
However, the petitioner failed to establish that any of the articles were published in "major" media, or that the 
sources in which the articles appeared on are "major newspapers, trade journals, magazines , or other 
publications." The petitioner submitted no information about the distribution or readership of the above sources, 
thus failing to establish that they are "major" media publications as required by the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has failed to establish eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
3. Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starting, or critical role 
for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation as evidenced by 
articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J), the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has had a critical 
role in two organizations with distinguished reputations: and 
LLC. 
First, the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J) requires evidence that the beneficiary will perform in 
a critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not 
claimed nor submitted newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials to establish that the beneficiary 's 
newly formed company, LC, has a distinguished reputation. 
Second, the petitioner failed to establish the distinguished reputation of Ltd. The 
petitioner repeatedly asserts tha · is one of the top horse trainers in the United Kingdom and 
has won over ,takes level races, but submits no objective evidence to support this assertion, such as Mr. 
's trainer profile or media articles about Mr. Notably, the petitioner submitted the trainer 
profile and media articles establishing the distinguished organization of but 
submitted no objective evidence regarding the reputation of Ltd. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasur e Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J) requires evidence that the beneficiary has 
performed in a critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation, in the plural 
(emphasis added). Therefore, even if the beneficiary were employed in a critical role for 
the beneficiary 's employment in a critical role for a single organization with a distinguished reputation , 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
alone, is insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulatory criterion. Significantly , not all of the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6) 
only requires "a high salary" either in the past or future. Moreover, when the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o) 
wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so, as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(ii)(D) that the petitioner must submit a "written advisory opinion(s) fiom the appropriate consulting 
entity or entities." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in any regulatory criterion has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is 
d . 1 . 20 use m a regu at10n. 
For the above reasons, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 21 
4. Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes as 
evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, box office receipts, motion 
pictures or television ratings, and other occupational achievements reported in trade journals, 
major newspapers, or other publications 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4), the petitioner explained that during the period the 
beneficiary worked for Kenneally Racing Stables, the business earned substantial purse money, over $3.3 million 
overall, of which approximately $997,000 came from the horses specifically trained by the beneficiary in the 
State of New York. The petitioner asserts that, as a first year Assistant Trainer, the beneficiary received 1% of 
$997,000 (i.e., $9,770) , as is typical in the industry . As evidence, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's 2012 
Form 1099 for $9,770 , as well as the beneficiary's Form W-2. 
The plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4) requires evidence in the form of published 
indicators, such as title, rating, standing in the field, box office receipts, motion pictures or television ratings, and 
media reports. The beneficiary 's Forms 1099 and W-2 are not "published " indicators within the ordinary 
meaning of the word "published." 
The petitioner submitted s trainer profile confirming his 2012 earnings of $3,327,734, ranked 
out of the top 100 rankings. This profile, however, does not indicate how much of these earnings , if any, can 
be attributed to the beneficiary. The petitioner did not submit a trainer profile for the beneficiary indicating his 
individual earnings and ranking . The petitioner's evidence fails to establish eligibility under the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv )(B)( 4). 
20 
See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ . Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor 's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
21 Because the petitioner cannot establish eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3), we 
need not reach a finding on whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary was employed in a critical role 
for Ltd . and even though the inconsistencies and deficiencies 
mentioned above cal mto question the beneficiary's "critical role" for these organizations. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
5. Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which 
the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form which clearly indicates the author's 
authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements . 
The petitioner has submitted several testimonial letters in support of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(B) provides that affidavits written by 
present or former employers or recognized experts certifying to the recognition and extraordinary ability "shall 
specifically describe the alien's recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise 
of the affiant and the manner in which the affiant acquired such information. " 
Upon review of the letters, we find that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has received 
significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies , or other recognized 
experts in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Executive Director of the 
Mr. attests that he is "acquainted with [the beneficiary] who has 
earned a reputation in the U.S. as a first-class horse trainer." Mr. further attests that the beneficiary 
"has earned a reputation in the U.S. as a first-class horse trainer" and has "produced numerous winning 
racehorses, including several winners of graded stakes races." Mr. asserts that the beneficiary can 
"take credit for the success of the horses he trained" including and 
Mr. explains: "in our industry, it is common knowledge which individual trainer is 
responsible for the reputation of a given horse and [the beneficiary] has thereby developed his own reputation for 
excellence." Mr. concludes that the beneficiary "has achieved prominence and distinction in American 
horse racing. He has indeed achieved a high level of achievement evidenced by his skill and recognition above 
other horse trainers in the field." 
Mr. makes several assertions regarding the beneficiary's achievements and recognition, but does not 
explain the factual basis of his knowledge. His assertions regarding the beneficiary's recognition for 
achievements are conclusory and carry little, if any, probative value. Merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); A vyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 
1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Moreover, Mr fails to explain the manner in which he acquired 
knowledge of the beneficiary's achievements and recognition. He states vaguely that he is "acquainted with" 
the beneficiary, but does not explain how. While Mr. referenced industry knowledge or "common 
knowledge" about assistant trainers in general, broad claims of industry knowledge or "common knowledge" 
are insufficient to establish the manner in which he acquired the information he seeks to assert as fact. Again, 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(B) states that affidavits from experts "shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the manner in which the 
affiant acquired such information." Mr. 's affidavit fails to meet the regulatory standard for 
affidavits submitted under this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Editor-in-Chief of Mr. 
states that, as a "member of the media, [he has] had the chance to follow [the beneficiary 's] career as an 
exceptional trainer." Mr. asserts that the beneficiary "has distinguished himself as a top-notch trainer 
in the racing industry . . . [and] has had an impressive career." Mr. further asserts the 
beneficiary "trained and produced numerous graded stakes winning horses .. . [including] who 
reached 6th place in the He speculates: ' 
undoubtedly hired [the beneficiary] as an assistant trainer because [the beneficiary] has an international 
reputation as an extraordinary trainer." Mr. concludes: "As Editor-in-Chief of one of the leading media 
sources in the industry, I recognize that [the beneficiary] is an exceptional horse trainer ... [who] has trained 
and produced some incredible horses such as and 
Similar to Mr. 's letter, the letter from makes several assertions regarding the beneficiary 's 
achievements and recognition, but does not explain the factual basis of his knowledge. His assertions regarding 
the beneficiary's recognition for achievements are conclusory. Moreover, Mr. also fails to explain the 
manner in which he acquired such knowledge. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(B). Mr. states vaguely 
that, as a member of the media, he has had "the chance" to follow the beneficiary's career and that , as editor­
in-chief of a media source in the industry; he "recognizes" that the beneficiary trained the afore-mentioned 
horses. These broad statements are insufficient to establish the actual manner in which Mr. acquired the 
information he seeks to assert as fact. As such, Mr. s letter fails to meet the regulatory standard for 
affidavits submitted under this criterion, and carries little, if any, probative value. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Chief Executive Officer of 
Mr. states that he was asked by the petitioner 's 
former attorney of record to provi e a labor group consultation for the beneficiary. Mr. states that the 
beneficiary "has distinguished himself as a first-class thoroughbred race horse trainer in the U.S., having 
produced multiple winning racehorses during his career with ' He further states that 
"[a]s part of the [the beneficiary] has trained several horses that won some of the 
most competitive and prestigious races across the United States," and that "(t]herefore he can take 
much of the credit for the success of the horses he trained, including stakes winners 
and j' Mr. concludes that the beneficiary has earned an 
"international reputation as an exceptional race horse trainer" and "has made a name for himself as a top-notch 
trainer." However, Mr. does not explain the factual 
basis of his knowledge. His assertions regarding 
the beneficiary's recognition for achievements are therefore conclusory and carry little, if any, probative value. 
His letter fails to meet the regulatory standards set forth at 8 C.F .R. § 214 .2(o)(2)(iii)(B). 
The petitioner submitted a letter from an equine veterinarian specializim! in high 
performance racehorses who has directly worked with the beneficiary during his employment at 
Dr. describes the specific duties the beneficiary had as a trainer, including creating 
individualized training programs for each horse that covers its diet, exercise schedule, and medical health, and 
monitoring the horses on a daily or hourly basis. Dr. also describes the beneficiary 's experience and ability 
to "read" a horse for injuries, and his understanding of technical and health-related aspects of racing, such as 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
regarding the rules and procedures regulating supplements and drugs and in post-competition issues. Dr. 
asserts that the beneficiary is "a key factor in the ongoing success of the horses he trains and manages ." Finally, 
Dr. asserts that he has "known hundreds of assistant trainers" and that the beneficiary "stands out as one [of] 
the very best." 
While Dr. j s letter describes the beneficiary's general responsibilities for the health and wellness of the 
horses in his care, as well as his general talents and abilities, he does not explain with any specificity the 
beneficiary's achievements and recognition. Dr. s statement that he has "known hundreds of assistant 
trainers" and that the beneficiary "stands out as one [of] the very best" falls short of attesting that the beneficiary 
has received significant recognition from achievements. 
The etitioner submitted a letter from an equine veterinarian and partner at 
who specializes in Sport Horses, orthopedics and diagnostic imaging. In this capacity, 
Dr. worked closely with the beneficiary during his employment with Dr. 
attests that the beneficiary "was the individual given responsibility for the health, care, nutrition, fitness and 
mental condition of about 20 horses in training at 's facility." Dr. discusses the 
beneficiary's specific duties for Ltd., including selecting the diet, vitamins, and 
nutritional supplements, selecting training sessions and workouts for horses daily, immediately alerting the 
veterinarian for health issues, administering medications under veterinary supervision , and generally assisting 
the veterinarian to get to know each horse and its condition. Dr. concludes that, based on his many 
years of experience as an equine veterinarian, the beneficiary is "one of the best trainers with whom I have 
worked ... [He) is recognized in the British community for his expertise and unerring attention to detail. He 
has clearly achieved prominence and distinction in his field as evidenced by the success of the horses he has 
trained and prepared." 
Again, like Dr. s letter, Dr. describes the beneficiary's general duties, talents, and abilities, but 
does not explain with any specificity the beneficiary's achievements and recognition. His assertions regarding the 
beneficiary's recognition are conclusory. 
It is noted that the letters from Mr. Mr. and Mr. as well as the letters from Dr. 
and Dr. are strikingly similar to each other in language and format. As a general concept, 
when an applicant or petitioner has provided affidavits from different persons that contribute to the eligibility 
claim, but the language and structure contained within the affidavits is strikingly similar, the trier of fact may 
treat those similarities as a basis for questioning the claims. See Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration 
Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that the "nearly identical language " of the submitted 
affidavits supported an adverse credibility determination). Moreover, in some parts of Mr. 's letter, 
he identifies the owner as "Mr. rather than and uses the first person ("I") 
when discussing 's decision to entrust his horses to the beneficiary . Consequently , the 
probative value of these letters is further diminished. In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined 
not by the quantity of evidence alon~ but by its quality. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010). 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
In respo nse to the RFE , the petitioner submitted a letter from an international 
bloodstock agent with 30 years of experience in the racing industry. Mr. explains the factors 
considered in evaluating the performance of a racehorse trainer, namely, the performance record of the horses the 
trainer has tniined. He lists other important factors, such as the opinions of past employers, opinions of experts in 
the industry familiar with the trainer and his methods, the level of competitions (races) where the trainer is 
engaged, and the value added to the horses by the trainer. Mr. admits: "It is difficult to tease out 
[the beneficiary' s] individual percentages because he was an Assistant Trainer for in Britain and 
in the US, and the statistics are calculated on all of the horses in training at a given 
establishment." However, he asserts that there are other means of "determining [the beneficiary's] specific 
contributions to an operation with multiple trainers," 
for example, looking at the resale value of horses trained by 
the beneficiary. Mr. concludes, based on looking at race records for horses the beneficiary 
claims to have trained, that "[the beneficiary] fares well on every one of the above criteria ." Finally , he states: 
" [The beneficiary] is well regarded in the British and European horse racing communities. He could not dare to 
open his own training operation in the U.S. unless he had earned considerable recognition from trainers and more 
importantly, owners in the U.S. Over the years [the beneficiary] has trained horses racing at the best tracks in the 
most prestigious races around the world." 
Mr. 's letter contains conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary 's achievements and 
recognition. While Mr. states that the benefici ary "fares well" on all of the important criteria for 
measuring a trainer's perfonnance , he does not state the factual basis behind his conclusion. Mr. 
states that he came to this conclusion after looking at race records for horses the beneficiary claims to have 
trained , but then admits that it is "difficult to tease out [the beneficiary's] individual percentages because he was 
an Assistant Trainer for in Britain and in the US, and the statistics are calculated 
on all of the horses in training at a given establishment." He does not claim to have direct knowledge of the 
horses the beneficiary actually trained. Mr. emphasizes that the beneficiary's achievements are 
best measured by the performances of the horses he has trained, but he fails to explain which horses, or which 
performances , through which he has measured the beneficiary. As discussed earlier, the record does not 
corroborate all of the petitioner's claims regarding which horses and which performances the beneficiary directly 
trained. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from former Chief Executive Officer of the 
Mr. states that the beneficiary "has a 
distinguished, world-wide reputation as an exceptional race horse trainer " and that throughout 
his employment with Mr . and Mr. the beneficiary "produced multiple champion horses ." 
Specifically, Mr. asserts that during the beneficiary 's employment with Mr. "the training 
team produced numerous championship horses, including winner of (G-1), and 
winner of the " During the beneficiary's employment with 
Mr. "the training facility produced numerous champion horses .. . [including] 
and ... [a]nd possibly most impressively, who 
placed 41h in the , a Grade 1 Stakes Race." Mr. opines that " neither Mr. 
nor Mr. would select anything less than an expert horseman as their assistant." Mr. 
further opines that the fact that the beneficiary has launch ed his own training operation "clearly 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
demonstrates that [the beneficiary] is highly respected , has a solid reputation and enormous pote ntial for 
success." Mr. concludes that the beneficiary has "established himself as a top-notch horse 
professional" and has "achieved prominence and distinction in the U.S. horse racing industry." 
Mr. does not explain the manner in which he acquired knowledge about the horses and performances for 
which the beneficiary is directly responsible. Notably, Mr. highlights the performances of 
and none of which the petitioner has demonstrated can be attributed to the benet1C1ary 
for reasons previously discussed. Mr. 's assertions that the beneficiary's employment by Mr. 
and Mr. as well as the beneficiary's decision to launch his own training operation, are indications of his 
achievements and recognition are speculative and not supported by factual information. Mr. s letter bears 
little probative value, if any, and fails to meet the requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(iii)(B). 
The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility ; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795-96 (Comm. 1988); see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 
500, n.2. The content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's reputation are 
important considerations. Overall, the submitted letters, for the reasons discussed above, are insufficient to 
establish eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
On appeal, the petitioner states that this case presents "the age-old question-just how good is the number 
two person on a great team or group?" The petitioner states: 
The question goes to the heart of the instant case because the petition requesting 0-1B status 
for [the beneficiary] was supported by evidence of [the beneficiary's] accomplishments as a 
number two . "Who does number two work for? " - - one of the most 
accomplished trainers in the United States. The nature of the 
racing industry, however, puts the trainer in the spotlight. The work of assistant trainers is 
rarely recognized in articles or by awards. Despite the lack of recognition, the team's succe ss 
is a clear indication of the ability of the assistant trainer. Individuals within the industry 
know the reputation and ability of an assistant trainer such as [the beneficiary] and, therefor e, 
are in the best position to provide evidence of the assistant trainers [sic] rep utation and 
ability. 
However, the petitioner 's assertion is not persuasive to explain the lack of objective evidence corroborating 
the submitted letters . In fact , the petitioner 's assertion undermines the beneficiary 's eligibility for the 0-1B 
visa classification. Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has 
extraordinary ability in the arts "which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim" 
and "w hose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation ." 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines the term "e xtraordinary ability in the field of arts" as "distinction ," as evidenced by 
"recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent 
is renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts." Thus, the statute and regulations focus on t he level 
of recognition the beneficiary has received for his achievements in the field. Where there is, as the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
admits, a "lack of recognition ," then the beneficiary inherently cannot qualify for the 0-1 clas sification , 
regardless of his talent or contribution to his employers. 
In summary, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under at least three of the six regulatory criteri a listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(iv)(B) . Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary qualifies 
as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
C. Comparable Evidence 
The petitiOner asserted that "[i]t is essential to note that the Petition relies upon COMPARABLE 
EVIDENCE as set forth in the regulations at 8 CFR Section 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C)." 22 The petitioner asserted 
that comparable evidence is appropriate in this case because "[t]he regulatory criteria are couched in terms of 
the traditional performing arts that are not relevant to the training of racehorses. In horse training ther e are no 
'starring roles in productions ,' no 'television ratings', no 'critical reviews ,' no 'original research '"23 The 
petitioner stated: 
But there are important roles which are critical positions fundamental to putting on a horse 
race. At minimum the following is required: a horse, a horse trainer, a jockey , a groom, and 
lest we forget, an owner to pay the bills. Someone must have responsibility for training the 
horse in advance; the owners do not simply hand the 
horses over to the jockey on race day. 
The horse trainer brings the horse along from the time it is a yearling. He handles it, 
introduces it to the ,saddle, teaches it how to balance itself, how to accelerate , how to break 
from the starting gate, how to run on a track with other horses, how to make turns, and how to 
move through traffic, all in attempt to cross the finish line first. Throughout this period the 
trainer must keep the horse healthy, fit sound, and able to perform at its best. Consequently , 
different evidence is required to establish a horse trainer 's extraordinary ability [sic]. 
The petitioner summarized, "[t]he comparable evidence language was included in the regulations precisely to 
cover petitions such as this, and provide a legitimate alternative means to establishing 0-lB qualific atio n for 
other activities beyond the performing arts." 
We are not persuaded by the petitioner's explanation as to why comparable evidence in this case is 
appropriate. The petitioner asserts that a horse trainer "must keep the horse healthy, fit [sic] sound, and able 
to perform at its best," and states : "Consequently, different evidence is required to establish a horse trainer's 
extraordinary ability." However, other than describing a horse trainer's duties, the petitioner has not 
explained why the beneficiary 's field is so obscure or unusual from other fields so that it could not fall under 
22 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C), as cited by the petitioner, relates to aliens of extraordinary ability in the 
fields of science, education, business, or athletics, and not to the field of arts. 
23 With respect to "original research," it is unclear what regulatory criteria under the 0-1 classification the 
petitioner is referring to, as this term is not found in any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii), (iv), and 
(v). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
the field of athletics or business for G-1A classification. 
24 
The petitioner has not articulated any persuasive 
reasoning for its claim that "different evidence is required to establisha horse trainer's extraordinary ability." 
Moreover, the petitioner is claiming that comparable evidence is appropriate because the regulatory criteria 
for the 0-1B classification in the performing arts are not applicable to the field of horse training for 
competitive horse racing. However, as discussed above, the petitioner's attempt to classify the beneficiary 's 
field as in the arts is improper. The petitioner may not mischaracterize the beneficiary's field as that in the 
arts, and then benefit from the comparable evidence provision because the regulatory criteria for the arts are not 
applicable to the beneficiary 's field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv) provides that the petitioner "must" demonstrate that the beneficiary 
possesses extraordinary ability by submitting the specific types of evidence listed therein. In contrast, the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) provides that comparable evidence "may" be submitted if the regulatory criteria do 
not readily apply. It is clear from the use of the word "must," as opposed to the word "may," that the rule, not the 
exception, is that the petitioner is required to submit the types of evidence specifically listed in the regulatory 
criteria. Hence, the petitioner must first establish that the criteria in paragraph ( o )(3)(iv) of this section do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation . Then, only if the petitioner is able to establish that the regulatory 
criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, may comparable evidence be considered . Here, the 
petitioner has not established that the criteria in paragraph ( o )(3)(iv) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that "comparable evidence" may be 
considered. 
D. Explanation of Events or Activities 
Beyond the director ' s decision, we ~ind that the petitioner has not adequately explained the nature of the 
beneficiary 's events or activities in the United States, including the beginning and ending dates for the events or 
activities, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C). 25 
On the Form 1-129, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary's job title will be "horse trainer," and that he will 
work at "[v]arious locations across the USA." On the Form 1-129 Supplement 0/P, the petitioner explained the 
nature of the event as "[t]raining and preparing horses for horse races across the United States." 
In ·a letter submitted with the initial petition, the petitioner explained that the beneficiary will be the primary 
horse trainer and owner of LLC, responsible for "training, developing and managing 
horses to race in on the tracks of and and perhaps later in 
other jurisdictions as the business grows." The petitioner stated: "The horses to be in training with the 
Beneficiary are very valuable, worth from tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars 
24 
The Service has explained that the comparable evidence criteria "merely allows petitioners in cases where 
the beneficiary is employed in an unusual or obscure field of endeavor to submit alternate, but equivalent, 
forms of evidence." 59 FRat 41820. 
25 The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis . See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
each . The horses ' owners demand the finest training and the highest level of care to ensure that these 
valuable animals win races and produce a return on their investment. " The petitioner then described the 
beneficiary's duties as a horse trainer, including evaluating and training horses, supervising staff, and 
communicating with horses ' owners. 
The petitioner submitted its contractual agreement with the beneficiary in the form of a sports representation 
retainer, dated April 25, 2013, which states in pertinent part: 
This will confirm your retention of our firm for sports representation 10 the area of 
professional sports and entertainment for a term of April 30, 2013- April 94 [sic], 2018. Our 
representation includes, but is not limited to, obtaining invitations to participate in 
professional or commercial events, negotiating contracts for television, radio or other media 
programs, endorsement packages, sponsorship packages, public use of your name and image , 
and public appearances. We agree to use all reasonable efforts to obtain the most beneficial 
contracts available to further your career. 
On appeal, the petitioner reasserts that that the beneficiary "has made enough of a name for himself to be able to 
gain the trust of many different owners and breeders. [The beneficiary] has been entrusted with million dollar 
horses." The petitioner previously submitted several letters similarly attesting that the beneficiary has already 
secured a "client base" in the United States. 
Upon review, the petitioner failed to adequately explain the nature of the beneficiary 's events or activities in the 
United States. The petitioner provided no explanation of the specific events or activities that the beneficiary 
will be participating in, including the beginning and ending dates for the events or activities, as required under 8 
C.P.R . § 214.2(o )(2)(ii)(C). The petitioner has only provided vague descriptions of the beneficiary's events or 
activities in his capacity as the primary horse trainer and owner of 
beneficiary will be racing in on the tracks of and 
LLC, stating that the 
The petitioner has not 
provided any detailed information as to which races the beneficiary will participate in, including the names and 
dates of the specific races. Furthermore, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary has already secured clients 
and horses in the United States, but other than these general statements and assertions, the petitioner has not 
identified nor provided any evidence regarding these clients and horses, such as documents regarding the horses 
that the beneficiary will be training or the clients who will be using the beneficiary's services. The petitioner also 
indicated that it would obtain "invitations to participate in professional or commercial events," but provided no 
further explanation or documentation regarding these professional or commercial events. Overall , the 
petitioner has not submitted a specific explanation of the events or activities scheduled for the beneficiary as 
required by 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C). 
Given the lack of explanation, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be entering the 
United States for definite, non-speculative employment. The 0-1 classification may not be granted to an alien 
merely to enter the United States to freelance and seek employment; an 0-1 alien must only be admitted to 
perform in specific events as detailed on the initial petition. 59 Fed. Reg. at 41828 . For these additional 
reasons, the appeal must be dismissed. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
Conclusion 
The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's duties, which consist primarily of evaluating and training 
horses, supervising staff, and communicating with horses' owners, or beneficiary 's field of endeavor of 
competitive horse racing, can properly be considered as a creative activity or endeavor falling within the field of 
the arts. Regardless, the petitioner also failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility under any of the regulatory 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) or the comparable evidence provision at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(iv )(C). Finally, the petitioner failed to explain the nature of the beneficiary's events or activities in 
the United States pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C), thus failing to establish that the beneficiary will be 
entering the United States for definite, non-speculative employment. 
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, the burden of proving 
eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed .