dismissed O-1B Case: Horse Training

(b)(6)
DATE: DEC 2 9 2014 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washinl!ton. 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: 
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/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. 
;;ir----1-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Vermont Service Center Acting Director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition 
and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition 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. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). The petitioner, self-described as a show 
horses business, seeks an extension of the beneficiary's 0-1 status so that he may work in the position 
of "horse trainer/show horses" for a period of one year.1 
The acting director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary 
qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The acting director determined that the petitioner 
did not establish that the beneficiary meets the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), 
and that the submitted evidence did not satisfy any of the six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B), of which the petitioner must meet three to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
The director also determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility under the "comparable 
evidence" regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to us for review. 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 
also asserts that the director erred by not considering all of the record evidence as "comparable 
evidence" submitted under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). Counsel submits a brief in support of the 
appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
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.F.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. 
1 In the record, the petitioner has also referred to the position as "Hunter Jumper Horse Trainer." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary 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 reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, 
advertise ments, publicity releases, 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 in 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. 
II. Discussion 
A. Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Requested Classification 
The petitioner claimed eligibility under the evidentiary criteria for aliens of extraordinary ability in 
the "arts" at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv), and asserted that the beneficiary meets the standard of 
"distinction," pursuant to the definition at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii). The acting director reviewed the 
petition under these criteria and determined that the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. However, we find that the petitioner did not 
establish that the beneficiary is primarily involved in a creative activity or endeavor, such that he can 
be classified as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii) defines the term arts: 
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. 
The regulations prescribe different evidentiary criteria and standards of review for aliens of 
extraordinary ability in the arts versus in business/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 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41819 (Aug. 15, 1994); 137 
Cong. Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and discussing the"distinction" 
standard for the arts). 
Although the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary should be evaluated based upon the standard 
applicable to those engaged in a creative activity or endeavor, the petitioner's description of the 
beneficiary's job duties demonstrates that the beneficiary is engaged, as a horse trainer, in the field 
of athletics. While the regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii), the definition of "arts" focuses 
on "any field of creative activity or endeavor." Notably, "animal trainers" are included in a list of 
stagecraft and related occupations filled by "essential persons" supporting "principal creators and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
performers." Thus, certain types of animal trammg, 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 show jumping competitions, would not 
be among this group, based upon the petitioner's description of the nature of the beneficiary's 
intended employment in the United States. 
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, according to the 
initial cover letter, the beneficiary's services are required as follows: 
The [petitioning organization] ... is owned by ... a young professional 
rider, competing successfully in the competitions against international and 
OlymQic riders. She was chosen to represent the United States as one of the United 
States • . ... She is riding top quality 
horses and requires the services of a top trainer so her horses are trained and ready 
when she enters the show ring .... Through the efforts of [the beneficiary], as her 
trainer for the past 4 years, [the petitioner] has moved up in the rankings and as 
of 
In addition, Ms. states that the beneficiary assists her in the show ring, when he "walks the 
jump courses with [Ms. and [they] calculate the strides and strategies between each jump" 
and "to critique so [they] can make adjustments as necessary." 
Initially, the petitioner provided its Employment Contract with the beneficiary, m which the 
beneficiary's duties are listed as, among others: 
[The beneficiary] will train and ride horses at [the petitioning organization] and train 
with the rider on the horse show circuit. The horses will jump to over 5'. [The 
beneficiary] will be in control of the diet, living conditions, grooming, exercising, and 
conditioning for the horses on the national and international show circuit. [The 
beneficiary] will be treating ailments as they arise, under veterinarian's direction. 
[The beneficiary] will arrange shipping to shows. 
The initial cover letter asserts that the beneficiary's work as a trainer in national and 
international showjumping competitions "is working in the area of his creative field of endeavor." 
However, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's specific duties show that he will not create, 
perform, or serve as essential personnel to a "creative activity," but instead will follow and evaluate 
programs to be used to prepare horses used solely for competitive showjumping, which the initial 
cover letter describes as a "sport." In addition, the evidence of record indicates that showjumping, has 
been an Olympic medal sport since 1912. The has been 
designated as the world governing body of the sport. Therefore, showjumping is an acknowledged 
form of athletic competition. 
While there may be instances in which a horse trainer seeks to enter the United States to provide 
services in the field of the arts rather than in the field of athletics, based on the nature of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
beneficiary's intended employment in the United States, the beneficiary cannot be included among 
individuals engaged in the arts or a field of "creative activity or endeavor." Where, as here, a 
petitioner seeks to employ a beneficiary as a horse trainer for the sport of competitive showjumping, 
extraordinary ability in the arts is not the applicable standard. 
A petitioner sponsoring an 0-1 athlete cannot seek consideration of the petition under the lower 
standard of "distinction" by characterizing the beneficiary's non-creative field as arts. 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). As the 
beneficiary's occupation does not fall within the 0-1 classification requested on the petition, the 
petition may be denied for this reason alone. 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). We conduct 
appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
Moreover, the fact that the petitioner seeks the wrong 0-1 classification is fundamental to why the 
petitioner may not rely on comparable evidence, as discussed below. 
As the acting 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 less restrictive standard of 
"distinction" applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
B. Consideration of Evidentiary Criteria and Extraordinary Ability in the Arts. 
Despite our finding that the beneficiary is not engaged in the field of 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, 286 Fed. Appx. 963, 2008 WL 
2743927 (9th Cir. July 10, 2008). 
As such, the issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary 
qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability athletics through submission of evidence to satisfy the 
regulatory requirements at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or (B). 
Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has 
been nominated for or has been the recipient of, significant national or international awards or prizes 
in the particular field pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(A), then it will have submitted the 
requisite initial evidence for 0-1 classification. The regulation lists an Academy Award, an Emmy, 
a Grammy, or a Director's Guild award as examples of qualifying significant awards or prizes. The 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
petitioner does not assert, and the record does not reflect, eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has won or been 
nominated for a significant national or international prize or award that would qualify for her for 0-1 
status under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). 
Accordingly, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the six 
evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B), or, if these criteria do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, submit comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(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). 
In denying the petition, the acting director determined that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy any 
of the six evidentiary criteria. With regard to the six criteria under which the director found the 
beneficiary ineligible, the petitioner contests the director's findings with respect to five of the criteria 
on appeal, specifically, at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B) subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), ( 4) and (5).2 
After careful review of the record and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility under any of the evidentiary criteria under 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 played 
"an important role" in his employment with the petitioning organization since 2010, training horses for 
showjumping competitions. S pecifically, Ms. claims that she has competed successfully at 
showjumping competitions because she and her horses were trained by the beneficiary. 
As evidence under this criterion, the petitioner has submitted letters from the petitioner and from the 
beneficiary's colleagues, including professional international equestrian riders 
as well as from equine veterinarian 
2 The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not submit evidence related the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2 (o)(3)(iv)(6), and the petitioner raises no objection to the director's determination on appeal. 
Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned this criterion. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 
2 (11th Cir.2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted two letters, dated November 4, 2013 and January 5, 2014, respectively. In the 
initial letter Ms. states that the beneficiary is her trainer at the petitioning organization, and she 
describes him as being, "in complete control of my horses, their exercise, conditioning, diet and 
treatments at home and while traveling and showing. The petitioner states that during the past year she 
has been "riding professionally competing in oumping events primarily in the United States 
and Canada." She credits the beneficiary's training with her having "been showing very successfully at 
the top levels." The petitioner states that she requires the services of an outstanding trainer, "who not 
only can care for the horse's physical well-being and conditioning, but can ride these high strung horses 
and train the horses so that they will jump effortlessly." She concludes by praising the beneficiary's 
training abilities, stating that "[ o lnly a trainer of extraordinary ability like [the beneficiary] can work 
with the horses and riders on the circuit" and "be able to recognize the abilities of each horse 
and adjust his training methods with the rider's ability." 
In the second letter, provided in response to the acting director's request for further evidence (RFE), 
Ms. asserts that "fslince fthe beneficiary] has worked for me beginning in 2010, he has trained 
numerous horses to level, the most elite level of competition," and provides examples of 
three horses trained by the beneficiary and the national competitions at which the horses have 
competed? 
• won three competitions: two at Florida and one 
m , New Jersey (2013), and is "now ready for level competitions;" 
• won two : (2010), won prize money for placings at three * * * * * 
events and competed at two '* * * events (2013); 
• is stated as having won money her first several competitions at one '* * * * and 
two '* * * events, and is "now prepared for international level competition. 
As additional evidence under this criterion, the petitioner submitted a letter from the beneficiary's 
former employer, a professional equestrian show jumper and 
Olympic medals winner. He describes the beneficiary as "an outstanding horse trainer." He describes 
the duties of a horse trainer for showjumping, and states, "[ d]uring the time that [the beneficiary] 
worked for me, he became particularly experienced in training horses for level competit ions." 
The petitioner also provided a January 6, 2014 letter from , a professional 
equestrian show jumper, who was part of the at the 
Olympics and the . _ Olympics.4 Ms. states that she has "observed [the beneficiary] 
working with [Ms. and with Olympic rider on the show circuit. She describes the 
beneficiary as having "the ability and knowledge and is well respected in the field of show jumping. 
[The beneficiary] is a trainer of exceptional ability." 
3 The record reveals that showjumping events administered by 
competition, with five stars, or _ 
level of competition. The record also reveals that 
governing body for most equestrian sports in the United States. 
4 The record also contains a January 7, 2009 letter from Ms. 
her signature is missing, that letter has no probative value. 
are ranked with stars to indicate the level of 
·1 * * * * * being the highest, or 
is the national 
but only the first page of the letter. As 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
The record also contains a letter dated December 1, 2009, from a professional 
international equestrian rider and trainer. The letter was submitted in support of the beneficiary's prior 
0-1 petition. He describes the beneficiary as being "at the top of his field." Mr. states that "[the 
beneficiary's] skills and abilities as a trainer have played a large role in the success of and achievements 
of his riders." He states that he has "observed [the beneficiary] with , in New Jersey, in 
Florida and on the international show circuit training horses who have competed 
successfully. . . . " 
The letter from a veterinarian for the states that he 
has worked closely with the beneficiary "during the time [the beneficiary] was working for 
on the international horse show circuit" and that he continues to work with the beneficiary in 
his employment with the petitioner. He describes the beneficiary's training programs as "constructed to 
maximize a horse's ability" and he states that the beneficiary "produces horses that are able to compete 
at the highest levels." 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from _ a horse trainer and former professional 
international equestrian show jumper, who describes the beneficiary as "highly experienced and skilled 
at the specific care reguired by international show jumping horses." He states that he invited the 
beneficiary and Ms. to "compete internationally as part of my stable team in Germany in the 
summer of 2014" based upon "the successes I have seen of horses trained by [the beneficiary] and 
ridden by [the petitioner]." 
do not explain the factual basis of their knowledge that 
horses trained by the beneficiary have competed successfully at national showjumping competitions 
beyond a vague claim to have observed him working with horses. As such, their assertions are 
conclusory regarding the essentiality of the beneficiary's role in the success of the horses at these 
events, 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); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). While the remaining letters are from those with more 
direct knowledge of the beneficiary's work, these letters do not .constitute reviews, advertisements, 
publicity releases, publications, contracts or endorsements, the initial evidence required by the plain 
language of the regulation. 
As additional evidence under this criterion, the petitioner has submitted press releases which discuss the 
wins of Ms. _ in various showjumping events for horses the beneficiary purportedly has trained, 
and screen shots from the website and the website of the 
, showing the petitioner's rankings. 
While acknowledging that the job of horse trainer "is a behind-the-scenes position," the acting director 
found that regarding the listed events "[t]here is no documentation to show the beneficiary was the lead 
or star in any of the wining events," as required by the plain language of the criterion. Upon careful 
review of the submitted evidence, we find that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
performed a lead role in training the showjumping competition winners. We acknowledge the letters 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
from the petitioner and 
however, these letters contain general language regarding the beneficiary's responsibilities over 
showjumping horses and, with the exception of the petitioner, the authors of the letters do not identify 
any of the horses the beneficiary actually trained. In addition, none of the letters establish that it was 
primarily the beneficiary who trained these horses for the specified competitions, as the petitioner 
claims. Further, the corroborating documentation submitted by the petitioner does not specifically 
identify the beneficiary as the actual trainer of the claimed winning showjumping horses. While the 
petitioner asserts on appeal that the beneficiary "was essential · to the process of producing winning 
jumper horses," the petitioner did not submit sufficient objective evidence, such as contracts, 
publications, and other documentary evidence tying the beneficiary to the winning horses to corroborate 
this statement. 
For the reasons above, the petitioner has not established eligibility under the plain language of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J). 
· 
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. 
As noted by the acting director, the petitioner has not submitted any "critical reviews or other published 
materials by or about the beneficiary in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other 
publications," as required by the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it provided evidence of the recognition of riders for whom the 
beneficiary has trained horses and that such evidence is comparable evidence under this criterion. We 
will address the petitioner's reliance on comparable evidence below. It remains, the record does not 
contain critical reviews or other published material by or about the beneficiary. 
For the reasons above, the petitioner has not established eligibility under this criterion. 
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 as evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or 
testimonials. 
The petitioner asserts that it has established the beneficiary's eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3) on the basis of the beneficiary's work for the petitioning organization and 
As evidence under this criterion, the petitioner requests consideration of the above 
testimonial letters. 
Mr. describes the beneficiary as "an outstanding horse trainer, who has worked with my horses 
and trained them to the national and international level." He asserts: "I can attribute my success with 
my horses to [the beneficiary's] skills and abilities as a trainer. [The beneficiary] has played a critical 
role in my success as a rider and in the success of my customers." Merely stating in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
conclusory terms that the beneficiary's employment was "critical," without sufficient detail or 
explanation, is insufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. While Mr. 
praises the beneficiary's skill in resenting horses to the ground jury at level competitions, and the 
beneficiary's knowledge of medication rules, his letter provides little or no discussion of the 
beneficiary's role or responsibilities within his organization or establishment. For example, he does 
not name the horses the beneficiary trained for him or where they competed. His conclusory 
statements fall significantly short of establishing that the beneficiary achieved the rank of a lead or 
critical role within the establishment. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 
905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5. Similarly, USCIS need 
not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Upon review of the above letters from the petitioner establish that the beneficiary has performed and 
will perform in a lead, starring or critical role for the petitioner. The director's finding and comments to 
the contrary will be withdrawn. 
However, while the petitioner's letters establish that the beneficiary performed and will perform in a 
critical or essential capacity for the petitioning organization, the petitioner did not establish that the 
petitioning organization is or was a company with a distinguished reputation, as required at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). While the record contains the above press release pertaining to the petitioner 
titled "Ridge at Series Concludes with finale at ," March 
24, 2013 (www , which briefly mentions the petitioning organization, this does 
not constitute evidence regarding its reputation. The petitioner has provided no independent evidence 
to establish that the petitioning organization has a distinguished reputation in the field, and the 
testimonial letters submitted do not address the reputation of the organization. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1998). 
For the above reasons, the petitioner has not established eligibility under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
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 
The plain language of the criterion at 8 C.P.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. 
Under this criterion the petitioning organization provided a screen shot from the website, 
showing that Ms. � in the organization's show jumping ranking list accessed 
on November 7, 2013. The evidence of record also indicates that Ms. I competes under the 
� Ranking System. The petitioner provided documentation from the 
website, stating that the ranking system "nationally and regionally ranks young professionals , 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
competition ages between 21 and 35) based on their competition merits in the hunter and jumper rings." 
The documentation from the Ranking System Rider Lists for 2013 
(accessed on October 28, 2013) confirms Ms. s earnings and rank in different events as follows: 
earnings of $37,120 ranked 20th on the Rider List; and earnings of $33,105 ranked 4th on 
the Rider List. The petitioner did not provide copies of all pages of those lists to indicate the 
total number of riders against whom the petitioner was ranked. The rankings from and the 
Ranking System do 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 also submitted profile with rankings of 2nd in individual and 1st in team 
equestrian events at the : Olympic Games in with a horse named 
However, neither this profile nor Mr. indicates that the beneficiary was the horse's trainer, such 
that Mr. ranking can be attributed to the beneficiary. 
For the above reasons, the evidence of record supports the acting director's determination that the 
petitioner's evidence does not establish eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). 
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. 
In order to meet the fifth regulatory criterion, the petitioner may submit evidence that the beneficiary 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B )(5). 
Under this criterion, the petitioner has again requested consideration of the testimonial letters from 
the petitioner and from the beneficiary's colleagues, including professional international equestrian 
riders as well as from 
equine veterinarian . Upon review of the letters, the petitioner has not establis hed 
that the beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, 
government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field. The letters emphasize the beneficiary's 
talents and work ethic rather than any specific achievements in the field. 
These letters emphasize that the beneficiary's achievements are best measured by the performances of 
the horses he has trained. The letter from the beneficiary's former employer, describes 
the duties of a horse trainer for showjumping, and states, "[ d]uring the time that [the beneficiary] 
worked for me, he became particularly experienced in training horses for level competitions." Mr. 
concludes as follows: 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Articles and press are always about the rider and not the trainer. In the sport of show 
jumping recognition comes from the success of the horses and the riders for which the 
trainers are responsible .... I can attest to the fact that [the beneficiary] excels as a 
Trainer both at the show ring and in preparation. I can truly say that he is one of the top 
trainers of show jumpers. 
describes the beneficiary as being "a trainer of exceptional ability." 
The letter from submitted in support of the beneficiary's prior 0-1 petition, describes the 
beneficiary as being "at the top of his field " and as "one of the most talented young trainers to come 
along. " 
The letter from asserts that the beneficiary "produces horses that are able to compete 
at the highest levels." 
Other than Mr. � � J the authors of the above letters do not sufficiently explain the factual basis of 
their knowledge. Their 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., 724 F. Supp. at 
1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990);Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5. 
In addition, as previously discussed, only the petitioner has specifically mentioned the horses the 
beneficiary trained, and the record does not establish that it was primarily the beneficiary who trained 
these horses for the specified competitions, as the petitioner claims. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
While the individuals who provided letters praise the contributions the beneficiary has made to 
organizations and individuals with whom he has worked, and hold a very high opinion of the 
beneficiary as a person and as a trainer, the testimonial letters do not explain with any specificity the 
beneficiary's achievements in the field. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the criterion at 
8 C. F. R. §214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
In summary, the petitioner has not established eligibility under at least three of the six regulatory 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(iv)(B). 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
If the criteria in 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 
establis h the beneficiary's eligibility 
The petitioner asserts that the acting director erred in not also considering the petitioner's submitted 
evidence under the "comparable evidence" regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
The petitioner did not initially claim eligibility under the "comparable evidence" regulation, but did 
indicate that it was submitting such evidence in response to the RFE, as follows: 
The beneficiary, as a plays a critical role for the 
petitioner who is competing in events with a distinguished reputation. The evidence 
submitted is comparable to that listed in the regulations, but the trainer is not the 
person who gets the acclaim in the press. 
The evidence referred to in the petitioner's letter relates to the successful participation of horses 
claimed to be trained by the beneficiary in national competitions. 
Also in response to the RFE the petitioner stated: 
USCIS has long accepted that certain professionals including horse trainers do not lend 
themselves to traditional types of evidence and documentation. Recognition comes 
from the success and acclaim of the horses and riders for which the trainers are 
responsible. As a result, sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for 
horse trainers in the field of show jumping can only be documented by comparable 
evidence in the form of letters from recognized experts familiar with the beneficiary's 
work and reputation, who are in a position to compare the results of top horse trainers, 
and who know the skills, achievements and qualities necessary to qualify someone to be 
considered a top trainer in the field. 
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 competitive showjumping 
industry, which the petitioner describes as a "sport." As discussed above, the petitioner's attempt to 
classify the beneficiary's field as in the arts is improper. The comparable evidence provision pertains 
to situations where the criteria relating to the beneficiary's field do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation, and not where criteria for the beneficiary's field exist, but the petitioner instead chooses to 
file under the provisions relating to a different field than the one in which the beneficiary works. 
III. Prior Approval 
The record indicates that USCIS has previously approved a petition for 0-1 status filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary. The prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original 
visa based on a reassessment of the petitioner's or beneficiary's qualifications. Texas A&M Univ. v. 
Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). In matters relating to an extension of 
nonimmigrant visa petition validity involving the same petitioner, beneficiary, and underlying facts, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
USCIS will generally give deference to a prior determination of eligibility. However, the mere fact that 
USCIS, by mistake or oversight, approved a visa petition on one occasion does not create an automatic 
entitlement to the approval of a subsequent petition for renewal of that visa. Royal Siam Corp. v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir 2007); see also Matter of Church Scientology Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 
593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). Each nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate 
record and a separate burden of proof. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.8( d). In making a determination of statutory 
eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in that individual record of proceeding. See 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(ii). 
In the present matter, the acting director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the 
petitioner did not meet all eligibility requirements for the requested classification. If the previous 
nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same evidence that is contained in the current 
record, the approval would constitute material and gross error on the part of the acting director. 
Furthermore, as discussed above, the petitioner has classified the beneficiary's claimed area of 
extraordinary ability as "arts" rather than "athletics." Based on the lack of required evidence of 
eligibility in the current record, we find that the acting director was justified in departing from the 
previous petition approval by denying the instant petition. 
We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that 
CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). Despite any 
number of previously approved petitions, USCIS does not have any authority to confer an immigration 
benefit when the petitioner does not meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition. See section 291 
of the Act. 
IV. Conclusion 
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's duties, which consist primarily of evaluating 
and training horses, or beneficiary's field of endeavor, competitive showjumping, can properly be 
considered as a creative activity or endeavor falling within the field of the arts. Regardless, the 
petitioner also has not established the beneficiary's eligibility under any of the regulatory criteria under 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) or the comparable evidence provision at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for denial. When we deny a petition on multiple 
alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if he shows that we abused our 
discretion with respect to all of our enumerated grounds. 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). 
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 of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
(b)(6)