dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19576069 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 13, 2022 
Fonn I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, al I coach, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability . 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the 
small percentage at the very top of the field. 
On appeal from that decision, we concluded that the Petitioner had not met the threshold evidentiary 
requirements . Because the Director had already addressed the issue of sustained national or 
international acclaim, we also discussed that issue, agreeing with the Director's conclusions on that 
point. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals 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 m 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 
international 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 criteria 
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 the initial evidence requirements (through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria), 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). 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Under the above regulations, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and 
a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of 
a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Before he entered the United States, the Petitioner competed at high levels in Ukraine, Italy, France, 
and Greece. The Athletic Club, d/b/a I filed a nonimmigrant petition to 
classify the Petitioner as an 0- lA nonimmigrant, and the club hired him as a coach after he arrived in 
the United States in 2019. 
2 
In the October 2020 I-140 petition denial notice, the Director granted three of the Petitioner's claimed 
initial evidentiary criteria, but concluded, in the final merits determination, that the Petitioner had not 
shown sustained national or international acclaim. The Director also noted that the Petitioner's most 
notable career accomplishments were as an athlete, rather than as a coach. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal in May 2021, concluding that the Petitioner had not met at least 
three of the threshold criteria. Because the Director had already undertaken a final merits 
determination, we also concluded that the Petitioner had not established sustained national or 
international acclaim either as an athlete or as a coach. 
Much of the disputed evidence relates to the Petitioner's career as an athlete, but he seeks employment 
in the United States as a coach. Guidance from the USCIS Policy Manual relates directly to this point: 
Some of the most problematic cases are those in which the beneficiary's sustained 
national or international acclaim is based on his or her abilities as an athlete, but the 
beneficiary's intent is to come to the United States and be employed as an athletic coach 
or manager. Competitive athletics and coaching rely on different sets of skills and in 
general are not in the same area of expertise .... 
Therefore, in general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or 
international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of 
coaching or managing at a national level, officers can consider the totality of the 
evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary 
ability such that USCIS can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of 
expertise. 1 
(Emphasis added.) In this case, the Petitioner competed internationally as recently as 2018. As we 
noted in our appellate decision, there have been conflicting determinations regarding individual 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and much of the evidence submitted on motion concerns 
the Petitioner's career as a competitive athlete rather than as a coach. A motion to reopen or reconsider 
does not entail de novo review of the full record, and even if we were to find that the Petitioner had 
established past acclaim as an athlete, there would remain the key issue of whether he had sustained 
that acclaim as a coach. 
We have considered all the evidence and arguments submitted on motion. Nevertheless, given the 
above facts and policy guidance, the ultimate question is whether the Petitioner has shown that his 
coaching activity has been at a level consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 2 For 
the reasons explained below, we conclude that he has not made such a showing. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
1. The Petitioner as an Athlete 
1 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(A)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 Because acclaim is considered in the context of the final merits determination, determining whether the Petitioner has 
achieved sustained acclaim as a coach does not require an underlying finding that he meets the underlying evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as a coach. 
3 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown 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 Petitioner initially claimed that his work as an athlete satisfied seven of these criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met three of the criteria, relating to prizes or awards; 
membership in associations; and judging the work of others. In our appellate decision, we concluded that 
the Petitioner had met only the criterion relating to prizes or awards. On motion, the Petitioner does not 
dispute the determination relating to original contributions, but maintains that he meets the other six 
criteria claimed previously. 
Upon review of newly-submitted evidence regarding! I national! I team, we conclude 
that the Petitioner's membership on that team is essentially a qualifying membership under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 (appendix), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual, 
which indicates that selection for "a national all-star or Olympic team might serve as comparable evidence 
for evidence of memberships." 
In our appellate decision, we acknowledged that an article from www.sport.ua was about the Petitioner, 
relating to his work in his field, but we concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the publication 
is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. Evidence submitted on motion 
establishes that www.sport.ua is ranked #10 among sports websites in I This information is 
sufficient to show that the website is a qualifying publication for purposes of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Because the satisfaction of these three criteria is sufficient for us to proceed to a final merits determination, 
we need not discuss the Petitioner's evidence and arguments relating to the other three claimed criteria. 3 
Nevertheless, as explained above, the Petitioner seeks employment as a coach, rather than as a competitive 
athlete, and therefore the evidence must show that he has earned acclaim as a coach. 
2. The Petitioner as a Coach 
In our appellate decision, we discussed the after-the-fact claim (in a letter from 2020) that the Petitioner 
had briefly served as an assistant coach in 2016-17. We concluded that the Petitioner had not submitted 
any contemporaneous evidence to confirm that this claimed coaching work took place; its effect on the 
team's success; or its wider impact on the field overall. We also noted that, during the 2016-2017 season, 
4 
the Petitioner was also actively competing, and we concluded that the Petitioner had not established the 
extent or proportion of his claimed coaching duties. 
Newly submitted evidence regarding thel I national __ team does not establish that he 
coached the team, or that he earned acclaim for doing so. 
Other evidence submitted on motion concerns the Petitioner's more recent work with the ____ 
I I club. Previously, the Petitioner had submitted letters from the club's executive director, which 
we discussed in our appellate decision. In a new letter (dated February 2021), that same official states 
that the Petitioner "performs the duties of Head I I coach of the club and Technical Director of 
the I section." 
The Petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(1 ). At the time of filing in 2019, the Petitioner appears to have had a more limited role at the 
club. In his first letter, the club's executive director described the Petitioner as a "Master Coach" who 
served as a lead coach "for many of our programs," rather than for the club as a whole. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner's apparent promotion within the organization is not inherently a sign of national or international 
acclaim. 
The Petitioner states that the club pays him an annual salary of $50,000, which "is in the highest bracket," 
whereas "the average annual salary for this position is $40,000." The Petitioner apparently bases these 
assertions on a newly submitted printout from SimplyHired, pertaining to I Coach Salaries in 
Texas." The printout indicates that the average annual salary is $34,216, and $58,895 is at the 90th 
percentile. But this information does not appear to be directly relevant, because the data apply to all 
I I coaches, whereas the Petitioner earns $50,000 per year as a head coach. The pay differential 
between a coach and a head coach reflects a head coach's higher authority and greater responsibilities, 
without necessarily taking acclaim into consideration. 
The evidence submitted on motion also includes a printout from ZipRecruiter, indicating that the yearly 
"Head I Coach Salary in Texas" ranges from $15,063 to $81,718, and that the "Texas Average" 
is $52,710. The Petitioner's $50,000 salary is, therefore, slightly below the 'Texas Average," and well 
below the high end of the range. 
Even then, the Petitioner was not yet earning $50,000 a year when he filed the petition in 2019. A payroll 
printout from summer 2019 shows gross payments of $1384.62 every two weeks, which extrapolates to 
an annual salary of $36,000. The Petitioner has not shown that this level of compensation is reserved for, 
or indicative of, sustained acclaim in his field. 
In one of his earlier letters, the club's executive director stated that one of the club's teams had won "a 
Silver Medal nationally at the Boys USA I IN ational Event. ... We owe this success to the 
preparation that was given by [the Petitioner]." In our appellate decision, we concluded that the Petitioner 
did not submit sufficient evidence to substantiate this assertion. The Petitioner's evidence named 
individual athletes, but did not show that they played for thel I or that the Petitioner had 
coached them. The Petitioner does not address or resolve this issue on motion. The motion does not 
include any new evidence concerning the performance of1 I athletes or the Petitioner's role 
in coaching them. 
5 
Previously, and again on motion, the Petitioner has submitted published materials regarding, and dating 
from, his earlier career as a competitive athlete. The Petitioner does not claim that his coaching work has 
attracted similar notice in either the sports press or more general media. Whatever success and recognition 
the Petitioner may have achieved as a I player, his employment with what is claimed to be among 
the largest youthl clubs in Texas is not inherently indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
The Petitioner's motion includes new evidence, establishing that he meets at least three of the threshold 
evidentiary criteria as an athlete. For the reasons discussed above, however, we conclude that this 
evidence does not establish proper cause for reopening the proceeding; the new evidence does not 
show that the Petitioner has established acclaim and recognition as a coach, as required based on his 
position and for the classification sought. We will, therefore, dismiss the motion. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
In our appellate decision, we concluded that the Petitioner had not established "extraordinary ability 
as al I athlete, or as a coach." The errors that the Petitioner alleges on motion all concern his 
earlier work as an athlete. As such, these arguments do not affect the critical question of whether any 
acclaim he may have earned as an athlete has been sustained and carried forward into his coaching 
career. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that our decision on this point was incorrect based 
on the evidence of record at the time of that decision. As a result, we must dismiss the motion to 
reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration 
and has not overcome the grounds for dismissal of the appeal. We will therefore dismiss the motion 
to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
6