dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20755433 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY Y 28, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, al I coach, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in 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 
establish that he had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. The matter 
is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record 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 (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 
(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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director indicated that the Petitioner met two of the claimed 
evidentiary criteria relating to awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and published material at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, we agree with the Petitioner that his membership with thel !Olympic team that 
competed in Beijing in 2008 is sufficient to satisfy the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 1 Accordingly, the record supports the Petitioner's claim that he has satisfied at least 
three of the ten regulatory criteria. We will therefore review the totality of the evidence in the context 
of the final merits determination below. 2 
1 An individual's membership on an Olympic team will not necessarily or automatically satisfy the membership criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Here, however, the Petitioner demonstrated that his membership on I 2008 01 m ic 
team re uired hi to attain outstanding achievements as determined and judged by experts at the 
and the . A letter from head coach of 
the ____ that qualifiers for the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics were selected based 
on their competition results at the 2007 World I Championships inl I 
2 Meeting the minimum requirement of providing required initial evidence does not, in itself, establish that the person in 
fact meets the requirements for extraordinary ability classification. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim, 3 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze an individual's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20.4 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner indicated that he was working as al I coach for 
I I inL I California. 5 The Petitioner submitted evidence reflecting successes in 
national and international amateur! !competitions, such as four first place victories at the 
Championships (2007, 2009, 2010, and 2013). 6 In addition, he 
documented his membership with the 2008 I Olympic team. Moreover, the Petitioner 
provided evidence showing media coverage of his amateu accomplishments from 2006 until 
March 2017. The record, however, falls short of showing that his achievements are reflective of a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990). 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his amateur 
achievements and coaching work have garnered him sustained national or international acclaim and 
that they reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723 at 59. In this case, the Petitioner has not established that he has received any amateur or 
professional awards since winning a silver medal at the I I Cup 2017"1 I 
tournament in Germany in 201 7. Further, despite the Petitioner having signed a 
professional agreement in California in 2019, he has not shown that he has competed against 
top since that time, let alone won any medals or awards, reflecting that he "is one of 
that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 7 See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(A) (stating that "such acclaim must be maintained" and providing Black's Law 
Dictionary's definition of "sustain" as to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time, and to persist in making 
an effort over a long period of time). 
4 In the second step of the analysis, the officer should evaluate the evidence together and consider the petition in its entirety 
to make a final merits determination of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated that the person has sustained national 
or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the 
person is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The officer applies a 
preponderance of the evidence standard when making this determination. See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B). 
5 Part 3 of the Form T-140 indicates that the Petitioner's "Date of Last Arrival" in the United States was Julv 17 2019. 
6 Additionally, the Petitioner presented documentation indicating that he placed first at the 20081 
Championships in En land, an amateur! I event hosted by the 
and third at the 2010 Championships in Russia. He also placed first at the International 
Tournament (2010), first at the "World Cu of 1(2005), third at the 
I ]Championship, and third at the Championship (2003). 
7 While 
this 2019 contract grants the promoter "the exclusive right to promote future as a professional 
' there is no indication that the Petitioner has continued to compete successfully against renowned or accomplished 
after coming to the United States. 
3 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of"extraordinary ability." 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner demonstrated a 
successful amateur career in until around 201 7, he has not shown that he has 
maintained his acclaim as a _ since that time by winning awards at nationally or internationally 
recognized competitions, demonstrating "sustained" national or international acclaim and 
achievements that have been recognized in the field. 8 See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In addition, although the Petitioner indicated that he intended "to continue 
working as a professional! I and coach in the United States, he has not shown that he has 
maintained his acclaim in his sport by successfully competing or coaching at top amateur or 
professional! I events after his arrival in this country in July 2019. Nor has the Petitioner shown 
that he has received any awards as a lcoach inl lor United States. 
Again, the Petitioner demonstrated that he was a member ofthel I Olympic team for the 2008 
Olympic Games in Beijing. However, the Petitioner did not show that this single team membership 
more than a decade ago resulted in "sustained" national or international acclaim. Furthermore, he did 
not establish that he qualified for the 2012, 2016, or 2020 Olympic Games, reflecting continued, 
sustained national or international acclaim in his sport. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. 204.5 h 3 . Moreover, while the record includes a letter from the president of the 
stating that the P.....,e Petitioner has been a member of both thel I 
and the ___________ Team since 2006, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has competed as member of these organizations after 2017. Nor has the Petitioner 
demonstrated his membership in any coaching associations that require outstanding achievements or 
that otherwise demonstrate his national or international acclaim as a coach. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not shown that he has maintained or sustained his national or international acclaim as al lor a 
coach. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding published material about him, the Petitioner offered articles from 
I I l 11 11 and dated 
2008 until March 2017. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate any media coverage about him 
relating to his work as al I or coach after March 201 7. The absence of such media 
coverage since that time is not consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
for this highly restrictive classification. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, the Petitioner 
has not shown that his overall press coverage is indicative of a level of success consistent with being 
among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that the limited media reporting reflects a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" or a "very high standard . . . to present more extensive 
documentation than that required." See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner satisfied, we consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility as an 
8 The record includes a letter of support from _____ a professional discussing his familiarity with 
events in the Petitioner's amateur career from 2005 until 2010, but his letter does not mention the Petitioner's 
activity as I in the decade after that period. While the Petitioner presented ratings from 
I for listing his current professional ranking among O the record 
does not include any similar ranking information for the Petitioner identifying him as a top amateur or professionac==J 
over the last several years. 
4 
individual of extraordinary ability. Here, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the 
evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is 
among the small percentage of the top of his field. 
The Petitioner asserts that he erformed in a leadin or critical role for the I 
I I and the in __ 
Regarding his role for these two organizations as an amateur the Petitioner has not shown that 
he has competed on their behalf since March 2017. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown that he 
has maintained or sustained his national or international acclaim by continuing to perform in a leading 
or critical role as a for the aforementioned organizations after March 2017. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
With respect to the Petitioner's work as al I coach at l the Petitioner provided a letter from 
I lthe organization's first deputy, stating that the Petitioner coached there "from 2016 -
2019." I I indicated that the Petitioner "coached and mentored both teenager and adult 
champions and awardees of the _______ further stated: 
The roof of this is who became the champion of 
of the in 2017 and 2018 won the silver medal of 
of the in 2019 and I 
who won the silver medal at _________ of the I 
in 2018 and the silver medal at International Championship held in l Russia 
in 2018. 
The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that he served as the aforementioned I primary 
coach or that their competitive success was mainly attributable to him. Nor has the Petitioner shown that 
his role as a coach fo was leading or critical. For example, while the Petitioner was involved 
in training these tw the evidence does not show that the Petitioner's coaching role contributed 
in a way that was of significant importance to the outcome of I I activities. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that his role as a coach at lwas reflective of, or resulted in, 
widespread acclaim from his field or that his level of coaching expertise placed him at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Besides reference letters and some competitive 
results for ______ and ______ the Petitioner did not offer evidence 
establishing that he garnered extensive acclaim or recognition from the field for his coaching role. In 
addition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has served in a leading or critical coaching role 
for a distinguished organization since his July 2019 arrival in the United States, or that he has otherwise 
sustained acclaim in the field of coaching at the national or international level since that time. 9 The 
Petitioner has not established that any of his past or present coaching roles are indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim or a "career of acclaimed work in the field." See section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act and H.R. Rep. No. at 59. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. While the evidence indicates that the Petitioner enjoyed success as 
9 For example, the Petitioner has not shown that he has coached top amateur or professionall I at 
(his current U.S. employer) in a way that is indicative of a leading or critical role for the company. 
5 
an amateur0from 2003 until March 2017, he has not demonstrated that he has garnered sustained 
national or international acclaim as an amateur or professional! after that period in either I I 
or the United States. Nor does the evidence show that the Petitioner's coaching achievements have 
been recognized in the field or that he has sustained national acclaim as a coach inl lor the 
United States. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. See Price, 20 r&N Dec. at 954 
( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal 
quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive 
by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 
(D.D.e. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of 
prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. l 9-cv-2534, 
2020 WL 2934954, at *1 (D.D.e. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of 
petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) 
( stating that "[c ]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this 
designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one 
of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 
While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the 
classification sought, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
e. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although users has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude users from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form r-140 immigrant petitions are denied after users approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.e. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.e. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d at 41. Furthermore, our authority over the users service centers, 
the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of 
another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, 
at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 10 
10 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(3). 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7