dismissed EB-1A Case: Jiu-Jitsu

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 27, 2024 In Re: 31417247 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a jiu-jitsu 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen'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 recognition 
of their 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 they 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 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 fust 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach. He intends to serve as a jiu-jitsu coach in the 
United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has 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 determined that the Petitioner only met the plain language 
requirements of two evidentiary criteria relating to lesser awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and 
judging the work of others at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record supports this determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) related to original contributions of major significance in the field and leading or 
critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and contends that the Director did not sufficiently analyze 
his assertions and the submitted evidence with respect to these criteria. The Petitioner does not address 
or contest on appeal the Director's finding that he does not meet the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
pertaining to membership (ii), published material (iii), display (vii), or high salary (ix). Accordingly, we 
deem these grounds to be waived. An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 
28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
Evidence ofthe individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner must establish that not 
only has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. For example, the 
2 
Petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field. 
The Petitioner asserted eligibility under this criterion based on his role in developing the 
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) Tournament as well as his development of Brazilian jiu-jitsu techniques. He 
initially submitted several testimonial letters and newspaper articles in support of his eligibility under 
this criterion. The Director found this documentation insufficient and requested additional evidence 
demonstrating that people throughout the field regard his original contributions as important, or that 
his work has been widely cited, has provoked widespread commentary, or is being implemented by 
others. The Director provided a list of the types of documentary evidence the Petitioner could submit 
in addition to letters, including patents, contracts, and licensed technologies. 
In response, the Petitioner asserted that the Director erroneously discounted the evidence initially 
submitted and asserted that the statements in the previously submitted letters demonstrate that he has 
made original contributions of major significance to the field. The Petitioner asserted that his original 
developments in the field of jiu-jitsu provoked widespread commentary, are considered important by 
peers, and had specific effects on his overall field. 
In the denial decision, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of multiple letters but 
concluded that none of the letters articulated how his contributions were original and were of major 
significance to the field. Although the Director noted that the letters were complimentary, they 
determined that such evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's coaching strategies 
and techniques had been implemented by others in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner again asserts 
that the Director erred by not sufficiently analyzing and affording evidentiary weight to the letters. 
Preliminarily, we note that this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Thus, the burden is on the Petitioner to identify his 
original contributions and explain why they are of major significance. Although the Petitioner asserts 
throughout the record that he is an expert in the field ofjiu-jitsu and that the record demonstrates that 
he has made original contributions of major significance to the field, he does not specifically identify 
those contributions or explain how his work has had such a deep or widespread impact as to be 
considered major in the field ofjiu-jitsu. 
The Petitioner contends that role in the development ofthel BJJ Tournament demonstrates 
his original contributions of major significance in the field. While he demonstrated that he designed, 
coordinated, and directed the tournament, the Petitioner has not shown how such actions are 
tantamount to original contributions of major significance in the field. He did not, for instance, provide 
a specific example explaining the tournament's impact or unusual importance to the sport ofjiu-jitsu. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Director failed to adequately consider his articles and 
letters of support, claiming on appeal that the Director unfairly discounted several documents due to 
deficiencies and omissions in dates and translations. While the Director correctly noted certain 
evidentiary deficiencies that undermined the credibility of those documents, they nevertheless 
evaluated the submitted documents and explained why they were insufficient to demonstrate original 
contributions of major significance. 
3 
The letters discuss the Petitioner's achievements as a jiu-jitsu athlete and coach, his strategies and 
techniques, and his role in developing the BJJ Tournament. The letters and articles, however, do not 
provide specific information explaining how his techniques have influenced the jiu-jitsu field in a 
significant manner beyond its impact on athletes he coaches. 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 corroborate 
her impact in the field as a whole). Moreover, while the Petitioner has demonstrated his role in 
establishing the BJJ tournament, the letters and articles do not demonstrate that this tournament has 
had a widespread impact on the sport of jiu-jitsu. 
While all of the letters submitted collectively speak to the Petitioner's innovations and techniques in 
the sport ofjiu-jitsu, they do not provide examples of the depth or breadth of their impact. Neither the 
letters nor other evidence within the record shows how the Petitioner's work has been widely 
implemented or has otherwise impacted the sport of jiu-jitsu. Letters that specifically articulate how 
a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work 
add value. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l ). On the other hand, letters that 
lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value and are not considered to be probative 
evidence that forms the basis for meeting this criterion. See id. Moreover, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 
1990). 
While the Petitioner has participated in extensive jiu-jitsu training and coaching, and helped develop 
an annual jiu-jitsu tournament, he has not shown how these activities equate to "original" athletic 
contributions of major significance in the field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the contributions must be not only original but of major significance. While the 
evidence suggests that he is knowledgeable and skilled in jiu-jitsu, it does not establish that he has 
made original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. Although the Petitioner has 
earned the admiration of his references and athletes he coached, the evidence submitted does not 
demonstrate that his impact on the sport is commensurate with an original athletic contribution of 
major significance in the field. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to not only identify his original contributions but to also demonstrate 
why they are considered to be of major significance in the field. Here, for the reasons discussed, the 
Petitioner has not met this burden. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1formed 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 Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he has performed in a leading or 
critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director incorrectly determined that he did not satisfy this criterion. 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which a petitioner 
was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. The Petitioner assets 
that he has performed in a leading role forl las a head coach andl las a BJJ 
competitor and coach. Although he demonstrated that he served as a coach for both I I and 
the Petitioner has not shown how his role as a coach is reflective of a leading role 
4 
I 
for them. The record does not include evidence, for example, differentiating his role as a coach from 
the roles of the other coaches or employees of these organizations. Similarly, the Petitioner provides 
no evidence distinguishing his role as a BJJ competitor for I Ifrom other competitors 
or fighters. Furthermore, he has not indicated where his position fits in the overall hierarchy of either 
organization. Without evidence establishing that he performed in a leading role, the Petitioner's roles 
as a coach and competitor in and of themselves is insufficient to show that it is leading consistent with 
the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that 
is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. Although 
the Petitioner asserts on appeal that "a title with matching duties is sufficient to meet the 
requirements," it is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that 
determines whether the role is or was critical. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at 
F.2(B)(l). Here the statements provided by representatives ofl landl do 
not provide detailed and probative information addressing how the Petitioner's role as a coach and 
competitor impacted their standings in the field or contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance. For instance, the evidence does not show that either organization garnered attention or 
increased attendance based on the Petitioner's coaching or competition appearances. Without 
information and evidence documenting the impact and importance of any work the Petitioner has 
conducted forl and the record does not demonstrate the critical nature 
of his role for these organizations. 
Further, the record contains insufficient evidence demonstrating that I and 
enjoy a distinguished reputation. While the evidence shows that these organizations are successful 
businesses that serve athletes, it is insufficient to demonstrate that the organizations have a 
distinguished reputation. For example, while the Petitioner submitted newspaper articles discussing 
the organizations and their fighters, the record does not establish that the organizations have received 
media coverage at a level that shows their eminence, distinction, or excellence, which might confirm 
their distinguished reputation. See id. (providing Webster's online dictionary's definition of 
"distinguished"). For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating his 
eligibility under this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director erred by not analyzing letters from athletes he 
coached who assert that they won national and international awards as a result of his coaching. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable evidence if they are 
able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to their 
occupation, which in this case involves coaching jiu-jitsu athletes. It is the Petitioner's burden to 
explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to the occupation and how the evidence 
submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See id. 
While the Petitioner suggests that due to the nature of his work, the submitted letters qualify as 
comparable evidence, he does not identify which criterion the evidence is intended to satisfy, nor does 
he discuss why any of the criteria are inapplicable to his occupation. A general unsupported assertion 
5 
that the evidentiary criteria do not readily apply to the petitioner's occupation is not probative. See id. 
The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, however, as 
there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the occupation of a jiu-jitsu coach cannot 
be established by at least three of the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In fact, as indicated in this decision, the Petitioner submitted evidence that specifically addressed eight 
of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and the record reflects that he has satisfied two of those 
criteria. Where a petitioner is unable to meet or submit sufficient documentary evidence of at least 
three of these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for 
the submission of comparable evidence. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it may rely 
on comparable evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because 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 at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we need not provide the 
type of final merits determination described in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, determining that it does not support a conclusion that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. The 
Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals 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 
submitted documentation of his achievements but has not demonstrated that these achievements have 
translated into a level of recognition that constitutes sustained national or international acclaim or 
demonstrates 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. Furthermore, the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage of individuals who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6