dismissed EB-1A Case: Jiu-Jitsu

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 28, 2024 In Re: 30315607 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a jiu-jitsu athlete, 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, a jiu-jitsu athlete, has competed in numerous national and international jiu-jitsu 
competitions. 
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 Petitioner claimed to meet the requirements of the evidentiary 
criteria relating to lesser awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
judging the work of others at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) , display at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and 
leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The Director determined that the Petitioner did 
not meet the plain language requirements of any of the claimed evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that he satisfied all five of the claimed criteria and contends that the Director did 
not sufficiently analyze his assertions and the submitted evidence with respect to these criteria. 
Documentation of the [noncitizen 's] receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes o r awards f or excellence in the fi eld of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion. However, we find sufficient 
documentary evidence to establish that the Petitioner received nationally and internationally 
recognized awards from the International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation (IBJJF), and the Director 's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. For example , the Petitioner submitted evidence of his 
receipt of numerous awards in Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitions, including First Place Gold in the 
International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation (IBJJF)I in 2016. The Petitioner also 
2 
presented evidence showing that the IBJJF ______ is the top tournament for competitors 
in jiu-jitsu. In light of the above, the Petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation ofthe [noncitizen 'sJ membership in associations in the fieldfor which 
class[fication 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 claims that he meet this criterion based on his membership in the IBJJF as a certified 
black belt. To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that he is a member of an association in 
his field, and that membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized national or 
international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of his black belt certificate issued by I land a copy of his 
IBJJF membership card showing that he is a certified black belt member. The Petitioner also submitted 
an excerpt from the IBJJF publication titled General System of Graduation. Article 5.1 of this 
publication lists the "IBJJF Basic Requirements to Obtain the Black Belt Certificate and Degrees," 
which states that an applicant for an IBJJF black belt certificate or degree: 
• Must be affiliated to IBJJF in the current year 
• Can not be an athlete with provisional graduation 
• Must provide First Aid or CPR course certificate 
• Must attend an IBJJF Referee Course within a 12-month period before the date of the 
request 
• Must be a professor or assistant professor at an academy affiliated with IBJJF or an 
athlete practicing jiu-jitsu in an IBJJF-registered academy who was graduated by a 
professor who is a black belt with at least 2 degrees certified by IBJJF. 
Article 4.1.3 of this IBJJF publication further addresses the degree system for athletes who have 
achieved a black belt ranking. It states that "promotion to a new degree in the black belt is only valid 
starting from the issuance of an IBJJF diploma, after the applicant meets the basic requirements present 
in Article 5." 
The Petitioner also submitted articles identifying IBJFF as "the most famous and prestigious federation 
in the jiu-jitsu world," as well as two academic papers ( a journal article and a master's thesis) whose 
authors state that the Brazilian jiu-jitsu black belt is recognized as one of the most difficult black belts 
to achieve in martial arts, often requiring a decade or more of dedicated training. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion. On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to properly weigh the submitted evidence and emphasizes 
that a certified black belt represents a high level of membership in IBJJF and that the information 
contained in the IBJJF publication is sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the achievement of membership in IBJJF with a black belt certification requires outstanding 
achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. 
3 
Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he satisfies this requirement 
based on his IBJJF membership as a certified black belt. The IBJJF' s General Systems of Graduation 
indicates that the federation distinguishes between academy-issued black belt graduation certificates 
and IBJJF-issued black belt diplomas. For example, Article 4.1.3 states that "every promotion to a 
new degree in the black belt is only valid starting from the issuance of an IBJJF diploma, after the 
applicant meets the basic requirements present in Article 5." 
Further, the stated "Basic Requirements" to obtain an IBJJF black belt certificate include submission 
of an application as well as evidence of "affiliation to IBJJF," completion of a first aid or CPR course, 
attendance at an IBJJF Referee course, and evidence of practicing or teaching jiu-jitsu at an 
IBJJF-affiliated academy for a specific period. Based on these stated requirements, receipt of initial 
membership as a black belt-certified member of IBJJF does not involve a process by which one must 
be judged as having outstanding achievements by recognized national or international experts in the 
field. 
The Petitioner highlights Article 5.2.1 of the IBJJF General System of Graduation, which states that 
"the Black belt certification graduation for each new degree is an individual process that depends on 
a thorough analysis by the IBJJF including examination of documents .... " However, there is no 
evidence that the Petitioner has been granted any certificate from the IBJJF beyond the initial black 
belt certificate or that his membership has been reviewed according to these requirements, which 
appear to be applicable only to additional black belt degrees. Further, it is unclear what is entailed by 
the IBJJF's "thorough analysis" of documents or what criteria are considered in such review, such that 
we could conclude that additional degrees require outstanding achievements. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that acquiring the advanced knowledge and skills necessary 
for black belt certification in jiu-jitsu is a demanding process that requires years of training and 
dedication, and that earning a black belt represents a significant achievement for practitioners of the 
sport. However, for the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted here does not show that the 
Petitioner has a membership in an association that satisfies all elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Evidence of the [noncitizen '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). 
This regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show that not only has an individual been invited to 
judge the work of others, but also that the individual actually participated in the judging of the work 
of others in the same of allied field of specialization. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.2(B)(l). The Petitioner claims eli ibilit for this criterion based on the claim that he served as a 
voluntary referee at the IBJJF' _______ Jiu-Jitsu Open. In support of this claim, the 
Petitioner submitted a letter from the leading referee for the IBJJF, confirming 
his participation as a referee, as well as photos of him at the event. 
The Petitioner, however, did not provide a description of his duties as a referee to demonstrate that 
they involved evaluating or judging the work or skills of competitors. Further, the record lacks other 
evidence, such as official competition rules for the event, showing that serving as a referee in this 
4 
instance equates to participating as a "judge" of the work of others. Although the Petitioner argues 
that his referee duties were subjective in nature, without further documentation such as evidence that 
he awarded points or exercised his judgment in choosing the ultimate winner at these events, we cannot 
determine whether serving as a referee at a jiu-jitsu event is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
Again, this regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show that he has acted as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied field of specialization. Here, the Petitioner's evidence does not 
reflect the duties of a jiu-jitsu referee involve evaluating or judging the work of jiu-jitsu competitors 
as opposed to enforcing the rules of a match and ensuring sportsmanlike competition. See Victorov v. 
Barr, 2020 WL 3213788, at *8 (C.D.C.A. Apr. 9, 2020) (finding a rational connection between the 
regulation's phrase "judge of the work of others" and our distinction between that and rule 
enforcement). Absent evidence that he exercised his judgment in choosing the ultimate winner, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the role of a jiu-jitsu referee includes participating as a judge 
of the work of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner also asserts that he satisfies this criterion by virtue of his evaluation of practitioners in 
the sport to determine whether they merit graduation to higher belt ranks. In support of this assertion, 
the Petitioner claims that he served as a "Blackbelt Professor" and subjectively evaluated individuals 
and their skills and performances. 
In support of this assertion, the Petitioner submitted letters from Brazilian jiu-jitsu athletes who attest 
that the Petitioner "graduated" them to higher belt levels at graduation ceremonies held atl II I The Petitioner also submitted excerpts from the IBJJF General System of Graduation as 
well as copies of "graduation certificates" issued to these athletes. The Petitioner also submitted a 
news article published in Flo Grappling regarding jiu-jitsu promotions. 
According to the FloGrappling article, "promotions in jiu-jitsu are subjective and does completely at 
the discretion of an athlete's coach." It further states that "there is no set criteria for when a promotion 
should take place." Moreover, Article 5.2.1 of the IBJJF General System of Graduation states that 
"the Black belt certification graduation for each new degree is an individual process that depends on 
a thorough analysis by the IBJJF including examination of documents, therefore, there is no set time 
for its conclusion." However, it is unclear what is entailed by the IBJJF's "thorough analysis" of 
documents or what criteria are considered in such review. The preceding documentation is not 
tantamount to evidence of the Petitioner's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in his field and suggests his claimed judging duties were performed in connection 
with his work as a coach or instructor. 
For example, Article 6 of the IBJJF General System of Graduation indicates that professors or 
instructors sign graduation certificates. As the Petitioner claimed to serve as a blackbelt professor, we 
cannot conclude that evaluation of athletes under his tutelage satisfies the plain language of this 
criterion. In an occupation where "judging" the work of others is an inherent duty of the occupation, 
such as a jiu-jitsu instructor, coach, or professor, simply performing one's job-related duties 
demonstrates competency and is inherent to the position. While we acknowledge that jiu-jitsu 
instructors, coaches and professors evaluate the physical conditioning of athletes and prepare athletes 
for competition by holding practice sessions to perform drills and to improve the athletes' skills and 
techniques, we do not find that evaluating athletes in this context constitutes participation as a judge 
5 
of the work of others for purposes of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe display of the [non citizen's] work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion as his competitions were athletic in 
nature. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that martial arts are akin to performing arts and submits a 
number of articles in support of this assertion. 
In order to demonstrate eligibility for this criterion, the Petitioner must show that his work was on 
display, and the venues were artistic exhibitions or showcases. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(B)(2). The Petitioner does not document that he displayed his skills other than when 
competing. While we do not question that competing successfully is relevant, probative information 
for eligibility, the Petitioner did not provide evidence that he has displayed his talent at exhibitions or 
showcases other than sports competitions. A complete review of the record reflects that the Petitioner 
has not established that his jiu-jitsu fights and competitions were of an artistic nature, or that the events 
themselves constituted artistic venues. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets 
the plain language of this criterion. 
As discussed above, we find that the Petitioner meets the lesser awards criteria but does not meet the 
criteria relating to membership, judging, and display. Although the Petitioner also claims to satisfy 
an additional criterion related to leading or critical role on appeal, we need not reach this issue. We 
reserve it as he cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal 
agencies are not generally required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they 
reach); see also MatterofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative 
issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
TIT. 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). 
6 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7