dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-M-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 9, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SER VICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Muay Thai and mixed martial arts (MMA) coach and trainer, seeks classification as 
an individual of extraordinary ability in the athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant 
visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he meets six of the ten regulatory criteria, and has established 
his eligibility for the classification. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to certain immigrants if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of J-M-C-
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as qualifying awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
submitted material in a final merits determination and assess whether the record, as a whole, shows 
sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 
(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if 
fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 
2d 1339, 1343 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the 
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the 
principle that we 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). 
11. ANALYSIS 
According to a March 2018 statement, the Petitioner intends to enter the United States to work "as 
Class Instructor (Muay Thai) and Personal Instructor/Coach for the ... [for] 
all skill levels from entry-level to expert." The president of the academy, . indicates that 
the organization is a Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and Submission Grappling academy in 
The Petitioner has not alleged, and the record does not establish, that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). He, therefore, must submit evidence 
satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(v) to meet 
the initial evidence requirements. Upon a review of the documents, we conclude that he has not 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he satisfies at least three of the following six 
criteria he claims to meet. 1 
1 If a petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) to believe that the claim is "more likely than not" or "probably true," the petitioner has satisfied the 
"preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of 
Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, 
AFM Update ADJJ-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), http://wvvw.uscis.gov/laws/policy -memoranda. 
2 
.
Matter of J-M-C-
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion because he is the two-time United States Champion. 
He submits certificates indicating that he was the 2005 ' 
and the 2003 
' The record includes 
documents about noting that it is "the oldest and largest organization of its kind, with over 107 
countries in its membership," and that it provides fighters "the best opportunities to compete and to 
move up through the ranks of other top-level competitors." The documents further state that 
offers "an opportunity for fighters to develop from novice class amateur fighters to open class 
amateurs, and then onto the professional level, through safe and competitive events." According to a 
document entitled I the events that the Petitioner 
won in 2003 and 2005 are only open to amateur fighters, who have not "signed a professional (boxing, 
kickboxing, MMA) contract or fought for any monetary compensation," or held "ranking in any 
professional list (i.e. 
etc.)." 
The record is insufficient to confirm that the Petitioner's wins in the two amateur events 
constitute his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. Specifically, the record lacks sufficient evidence confirming that his accomplishments are 
recognized outside of on a national or international level. For example, he has not shown that 
his wins attracted the level of media attention that might indicate the awards' national or international 
recognition. Moreover, he has not submitted information about the individuals who participated in 
the amateur events that he was in, including their caliber and skill level, which might reveal the 
prestige and recognition of the competitions in the sport. See USCIS Policy Memorandum 
PM 602-0005.1, supra, 6 (providing that for this criterion we should consider "[t]he number of 
awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors" and that "an award limited to 
competitors from a single institution ... may have little national or international significance"). Based 
on these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that his accomplishments in the 2003 and 2005 
amateur events are recognized nationally or internationally, or that he satisfies this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner maintains that he satisfies this criterion because he was part of the 
national team in 2003 and 2005. He submits certificates showing that he was "an official member of 
the 2005 and "an official member of the 2003 
According to an online printout entitled 
" " [i ]n 2001, set up the first 
and that "[f]inalists from the event comprised the first US Team" that competed in the 
An online printout entitled states that the organization 
has "representatives in more than 90 countries and regularly holds competitions, culminating once a 
3 
.
Matter of J-M-C-
year in the which involves all the amateur material arts disciplines and 
styles under one set competition format." 
The record shows that the Petitioner became the national team member based on 
his 2003 and 2005 compet1t10n successes. He, however, has not shown that his wins at these 
events qualify as "outstanding achievements," as referenced in the criterion. As discussed, the 
competitions are open only to amateur fighters. As such, the top individuals in the sport, who are 
professional athletes, may not complete in them. In addition, the Petitioner has not submitted 
information, such as the number of participants in his events or the caliber of these participants, which 
might reveal whether winning these contests qualify as "outstanding achievements." 
Moreover, the record demonstrates that there are multiple Muay Thai and MMA federations. As such, 
the record does not confirm that being on the national team is similar to being on the national 
team of a sport that has one national governing body, which generally means that only the top 
competitors in the country make the team. Furthermore, the record lacks sufficient evidence 
confirming that the individuals who judged the Petitioner's events are recognized national or 
international experts. As such, he has not shown that his membership on the national team 
constitutes evidence of his membership in organizations that require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion. The record includes an Internet Movie Database 
(IMDb) printout, indicating that he appeared as the character in the 2017 
documentary film This document does not satisfy the criterion because it does not 
include information about the author. In addition, other than listing his character in the film, the 
printout does not provide any additional information about him or his work as an athlete or coach. 
Other published materials, such as a 2013 Fighters Only article, while listing him as a coach for a 
particular fighter or establishment, similarly do not include information about him or his work. The 
Petitioner, therefore, has not established that these brief references satisfy the criterion. 
According to a printout from buildseries.com, in 2017, the program Build interviewed the 
Petitioner and others about The Petitioner has not offered a transcript of the interview 
or documentation to show that Build constitutes a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media. As such, the record is insufficient to confirm that the interview was about him as relating 
to his work as a coach or athlete published in a qualifying publication or media. 
The record contains other documents, including those showing that the Petitioner served as a 
consultant for an Adidas advertisement campaign entitled · 2 he was 
2 The Petitioner offers an October 2017 letter from the producer of the Adidas commercial · to 
4 
.
Matter of J-M-C-
acknowledged in the books and both written by 
he was one of the guest co-hosts on the podcast 
with and ; and he was the trainer for , a professional 
MMA fighter, who fought in an event that NBC Sports broadcast. While this evidence might show 
that the Petitioner has been gainfully employed and active in the sport, it does not demonstrate that the 
published materials are "about [him] ... relating to [his] work in the field for which classification is 
sought." The Petitioner has not shown that these published materials discuss his biography, his athletic 
accomplishments, or his work as a coach and trainer. Based on these reasons, he has not demonstrated 
that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied.field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner indicates that he meets this criterion. The record supports his position. According to a 
June 2018 letter from the president of , the Petitioner "has represented 
[the] organization as a Judge and Referee of [its] most prestigious championship events." 
explains that the Petitioner was a judge at the 2016 , and 
"judged more than six world title fights." During this event, the Petitioner "assigned points to the 
individual fighters for given actions such as kicks ... based on the impact of the strike on the 
opponent," and "determine[d] the winners of the world titles." The evidence, including 
letter, sufficiently establishes that the Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner alleges that he meets this criterion because he has developed unique training techniques 
that improve performance. To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that not only has he 
made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. Major 
significance in the field may be shown through evidence that his original training methods have been 
widely accepted and implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the 
field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. See USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 8-9. 
The record includes a number ofletters from individuals who have worked with the Petitioner, praising 
his training methods. For example, states in a February 2018 letter that the Petitioner "has 
developed specific, innovative, and highly-effective and individualized Muay Thai and MMA 
programs" that "focus on a wide range ofMMA, Muay Thai, and kickboxing techniques ." He claims 
that the Petitioner "played a critical role in [his] success, including [his] victory over 
in 2017. ___ a MMA and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu fighter whom the Petitioner had trained, provides 
verify his involvement with the project. The letter, however, contains two different fonts: one font is used to describe his 
achievements and qualifications , while the other is used for the letter's introductory and closing paragraphs. This calls 
into question the authenticity of the letter and whether it represents the author's independent opinion. 
5 
.
Matter of J-M-C-
in an October 2017 letter that "the pioneering, cutting-edge trammg plans [that the Petitioner] 
developed are the best ... Muay Thai plans and programs" and they "led to [his] winning a prestigious 
championship." states in a June 2018 letter that the Petitioner "is widely known for his 
original, innovative 'periodization' training methods" that "teaches the fighter[s] to manage their 
aerobic energy such that they use their peak energy at the most crucial moments in a tournament." 
While the evidence sufficiently demonstrates that the Petitioner's training methods are innovative and 
unique, it does not confirm that they qualify as contributions of major significance in the field. 
See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 8-9. claims in his June 
2018 letter that his academy as well as other training facilities have used the Petitioner's unique 
periodization plans. . the owner and head coach of __ similarly states 
in his June 2018 letter that he has "use[ d] and incorporate[ d the Petitioner's] original technique in [his] 
own coaching and training," which led to his fighter ----~ · .. win[ning] the world 
championship gold medal in 2016." 
These documents illustrate that the Petitioner's methods have been adopted by some coaches and 
trainers, but do not confirm that they have been accepted and implemented by a large number of 
coaches or that they have otherwise influenced training methods in the field in a significant way. For 
example, the record lacks major publication reporting on the Petitioner's methods or noting that they 
have been widely adopted in the sport. This criterion requires documentation of contributions of major 
significance in the field as a whole. Evidence of impact on a limited number of individuals are 
therefore insufficient to satisfy the criterion. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a 
finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact 
in the field as a whole); Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122 (finding "letters from physics professors attesting 
to [a petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient to meet this criterion). 
Similarly, although ===== provides in his June 2018 letter that the Petitioner has developed 
"a unique to measure a student's progress, and that it "has been adopted 
by many leading instructors in the sport across the U.S.," the evidence does not substantiate his 
statements. Specifically, the record lacks documentation confirming that the Petitioner's grading 
system is unique, such that he is the first or one of the first person to have used it, or that others in the 
field has widely adopted this grading system. 
The documents in the record, including reference letters and evidence we have not specifically 
discussed, do not confirm that the Petitioner's training methods or grading system have significantly 
impacted or influenced, or otherwise constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. 
Letters that offer general praises of the Petitioner and that repeat the regulatory language, but do not 
sufficiently explain how his contributions have already influenced the field significantly are 
insufficient to satisfy this criterion. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 , supra, 9 (noting 
"[l]etters that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not 
considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion"). Based on 
these reasons, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
.
Matter of J-M-C-
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion because he works for 
According to a February 2018 letter from the Petitioner "serves in the critical and 
leading positions of Class Instructor (Muay Thai) and Personal Instructor/Coach for the 
_," providing "group and private classes in all skill levels" and "periodic workshops and 
seminars," as well as serving "as a representative ... to promote the Academy." The letter further 
notes that the Petitioner, "serving as both Lead Instructor and Co-Instructor," "plays an absolutely 
critical role in ensuring [the establishment's] continued success and reputation as a leading academy 
for professional fighters and celebrities." The evidence sufficiently shows that the Petitioner performs 
in a leading or critical role for 
The record, however, is insufficient to demonstrate that is an organization or 
establishment that has a distinguished reputation, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The 
evidence indicates that the academy serves as a training facility for celebrities and professional MMA 
fighters, including and A 2017 GQ Style article, which features "some of 
the best sweatshirts of the season, worn by the normal guys and badass fighters who train [ at 
indicates that the academy "has become an unlikely training spot for 
photographers, models, musicians, Vogue employees," and that its owner, "is a 
famous Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioner and instructor who comes from a long line of similarly well­
known martial artists." In an email setting up GQ Style's visit to the academy, the publication's 
photographer noted that the article is "a small fashion story." An online printout from bjjheroes.com 
provides that the academy is "a gym that rapidly became a reference in America and the world for 
high quality Jiu Jitsu." 
While the evidence shows that is a successful business that serves both 
professional and recreational athletes, including some who are in the entertainment business, it is 
insufficient to demonstrate that the academy has a distinguished reputation. For example, the record 
does not establish that the establishment has received media coverage at a level that shows its 
eminence, distinction, or excellence, which might confirm its distinguished reputation. See USCIS 
Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 10-11 (providing Webster's online dictionary's 
definition of "distinguished"). Although the Petitioner has offered documentation relating to 
athletic accomplishments, this evidence is insufficient to confirm that his academy has 
a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also claims that he has played a leading or critical role for While 
the evidence shows that he has competed in events, trained fighters who participated in 
competitions, and served as a referee and judge at matches, it does not confirm 
that he holds any leadership position within the organization, or is responsible for duties that make 
him a leader of Moreover, the record does not confirm that he has contributed in a way 
that is of significant importance to the outcome or standing of the entity. While most individuals 
involved with an organization can have some impact on the entity, to establish a critical role, a 
petitioner must document that his or her work is crucial to the success of the entity. The Petitioner has 
Matter of J-M-C-
not made such a showing here. Based on these reasons, he has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, upon a review of 
the record in its entirety, we conclude that it does not support a finding that he has established the 
acclaim and recognition required for this classification. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals who are already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has 
long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his athletic and coaching accomplishments 
is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is 
one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-M-C-, ID# 26083 53 (AAO Apr. 9, 2019)