dismissed EB-1A Case: Judo Coach

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 14, 2025 In Re: 35612080 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a judo 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 the Petitioner did not receive 
a one-time achievement or satisfy at least three ofthe initial evidentiary criteria. 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)(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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not show his receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award under 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3). Moreover, the Director concluded the Petitioner met only one 
(leading or critical role) of the five claimed alternate regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. One-Time Achievement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides 
that "[s]uch evidence shall include evidence of a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major internal[ly] recognized award)." Further, the House Report 
specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement.' See H.R. Rep. 101-
723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. Moreover, 
we have consistently recognized other examples of a one-time achievement include the Pulitzer Prize, 
an Academy Award, and an Olympic Medal. Further, we must look to Congress' intent that 
"admission under this category is to be reserved for that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." Id. Thus, consistent with legislative history, a one­
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. 
In addition, the selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress indicated above, is 
reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, reflects a 
familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally 
recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those 
elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope 
and internationally recognized, not just acknowledged within the field as its highest award. 
1 Although in the 0-1 nonimmigrant extraordinary ability context, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(A) provides 
an example of the Nobel Prize as an example of a major, internationally recognized award. 
2 
The Director's decision indicated: 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that the petitioner was granted the title of "master of 
sport" by the in 2001. However, as the award relates to the 
petitioner's work as an athlete, it therefore has little probative value for this proceeding. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence supporting that the petitioner was trained and 
performed as a coach, and evidence of the awards of others, but submitted no objective 
evidence that the petitioner was the coach of these awardees, nor did the petitioner 
submit clear evidence establishing that these awards are equivalent to a Nobel Prize, 
Olympic medal, or similar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
The evidence of "master of sports" related to the athletic career of the Petitioner; that 
although Petitioner submitted evidence supporting that the Petitioner trained and 
performed as a coach with evidence of awards of others, no objective evidence was 
submitted that Petitioner was the coach of those awardees and no objective evidence 
establishing that these awards are equivalent to a Nobel Prize, Olympic medal or 
similar. 
The Petitioner does not articulate how the Director erred in finding the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. In fact, it appears the Petitioner references 
statements from the Director's decision without further elaborating or showing how the Director erred 
as a matter of fact, law, or policy. See Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Dir. 1997) (declining to 
address a "passing reference" to an argument in a brief that did not provide legal support). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish error in the Director's decision. 
Notwithstanding the above, we agree with the Director's assessments. The Petitioner's claim of 
"Master of Sport" relates to his achievements as a judo athlete rather than as a judo coach. See Lee v. 
Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that extraordinary ability as a baseball player 
does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball 
industry such as a manager, umpire or coach); Mussarova v. Garland, 562 F.Supp.3d 837 (C.D. Ca. 
2022) ( determining that the plaintiff's awards as a water polo player were not awarded as a water polo 
coach); Integrity Gymnastics & Pure Power Cheerleading, LLC v. USCIS, 131 F.Supp.3d 721 (S.D. 
Oh. 2015) ( concluding that the AAO' s reasoning, relevant statutory and regulatory language, and case 
law was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law in finding that an 
Olympic gold medal gymnast must meet the extraordinary ability classification through her 
achievements as a coach, her intended area of expertise). Moreover, the Petitioner did not explain 
how the awards earned by other athletes, even ifhe demonstrated his coaching connection, establishes 
his receipt of the awards. Finally, the Petitioner did not show how any of these awards enjoy broad, 
significant, and international recognition and receives a similar level of attention or popularity by the 
general public comparable to other major, globally recognized awards such as Nobel Prizes, Olympic 
Medals, and Oscars. 
3 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish his receipt of a one-time achievement under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
1. Awards 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt oflesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." On 
appeal, the Petitioner indicates his "Master of Sport," ranking recognition, and black belt degree as an 
athlete. For the reasons discussed above, these awards relate to the Petitioner's prior career as a judo 
athlete and will not be considered in his area of expertise as a judo coach. See Lee, 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 
914; Integrity Gymnastics & Pure Power Cheerleading, LLC, 131 F.Supp. 3d at 721; Mussarova, 562 
F.Supp. 3d at 837. 
In addition, the Petitioner claims "he was awarded a title of National Coach in the United States" and 
"acknowledges that the evidence was obtained subsequent to the filing of the I-140 petition." The 
affected party has the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time of 
filing the benefit request and continuing until the final adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see 
also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971) (providing that "Congress did not intend 
that a petition that was properly denied because the beneficiary was not at that time qualified be 
subsequently approved at a future date when the beneficiary may become qualified under a new set of 
facts."). Because the Petitioner became a "National Coach" after he filed his petition, we need not 
determine his eligibility under this claim for this criterion. 
Finally, the Petitioner states that he "is submitting additional evidence/information related to the 
competitions that the athletes he had trained in I I participated, along with the letters from the 
athletes." Because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this 
evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l) (requiring 
all requested evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 
(BIA 1988) ( declining to consider new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner was put 
on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record 
before the denial"). Moreover, in determining eligibility for this criterion, we look to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), requiring "[d]ocumentation of the alien's 
receipt" of prizes or awards. We consider the term "alien's receipt" using its ordinary, common 
meaning. See, e.g., Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) ("A fundamental canon of statutory 
construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, 
contemporary, common meaning .... "). The description of this type of evidence in the regulation 
indicates that the focus should be on the person's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to the 
employer's receipt of the awards or prizes. 2 Thus, prizes or awards not received by or bestowed upon 
the Petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
4 
I 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show he satisfies this criterion. 
2. Memberships 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his membership with thel 
Ias a head coach and references a letter from D-K-, founder of who stated: 
Since 2008 [the Petitioner] started working as a coach at our I I was proud to see 
how [the Petitioner] started training the young athletes and passed on his knowledge 
and expertise to the young generation. It was not a surprise that [the Petitioner] 
succeeded as a coach within a short period of time. In 2010 I I administration 
placed [the Petitioner's] candidacy for the post of the Head Coach. His candidacy was 
chosen for his outstanding accomplishments as an athlete and a coach. His knowledge 
ofjudo as a martial art, sport and the philosophy behind it, his scrupulous execution of 
the rules and regulation ofjudo as a coach, placed him above his piers [sic] and offered 
an opportunity for our administration to acquire an invaluable addition as a Head 
Coach. His candidacy over four other coaches. He continued his work as a Head Coach 
until 2022. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[d]ocumentation 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." 
USCIS determines if the association for which the person claims membership requires that members 
have outstanding achievements in the field as judged by recognized experts in that field. 3 The 
petitioner must show that membership in the association requires outstanding achievements in the field 
for which classification is sought, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 4 
D-K-' s letter discusses the Petitioner's employment as a coach and head coach rather than as a member 
with Regardless, although the letter claims that the Petitioner was chosen for his "outstanding 
accomplishments," the letter does not indicate that requires outstanding achievements, an 
essential element of this regulatory criterion. Further, the Petitioner did not offer supporting evidence, 
such as bylaws or other documentation, showing the hiring (membership) requirements for In 
addition, the letter does not indicate whether national or international experts judge the hiring 
(membership) for another vital element for this criterion. 
As such, the Petitioner did not establish he fulfills this criterion. 
3. Published Material 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]]ublished 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." 
3 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
4 Id. 
5 
Initially, the Petitioner provided a partial translation for an article from Sporting Any 
document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). Because the Petitioner offered a partial translation, we accord it no weight. 
Similarly, the Petitioner submitted another partial translation claiming for an article posted on 
I I without providing the actual article; and therefore, we will also accord no weight to it. 
Regardless, neither translation contains the author of the articles, as required under this criterion. 
Moreover, both partial translations appear to relate to the Petitioner's activities as a judo athlete rather 
than as a judo coach. See Lee, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914; Integrity Gymnastics & Pure Power 
Cheerleading, LLC, 131 F.Supp. 3d at 721; Mussarova, 562 F.Supp. 3d at 837. 
In addition, the Petitioner offered a translation of an article from I I Weekly. Although the article 
reflects a discussion of the Petitioner as both an athlete and coach, the translation did not provide the 
required author of the article. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted an article from insidekung­
fomagazine.com. However, the article postdates the filing of the petition; and therefore, will not be 
considered. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Finally, this criterion not only requires published material about the individual relating to work in the 
field but also requires the material to have been published in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media. 5 We note the Petitioner did not offer any evidence for Sporting I 
I I and insidekung-fomagazine.com showingtheirprofessional or major trade publication or 
other major media standing. As it relates to Weekly, the Petitioner presented a screenshot 
from the publication's website indicating a weekly print circulation of 12,000 - 13,000, with a 
geographic distribution mainly in the Southern California area. However, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the significance or relevance of the figures, so as to show such circulation represents the 
major status of the publication. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish his receipt of a one-time achievement or satisfaction of the awards, 
membership, and published material criteria. Although the Petitioner also argues eligibility for 
original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), we need not reach this additional ground, as 
well as a review of the Director's favorable determination for the leading or critical role criterion, 
because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three under 8 C.F.R. 
5 See generally 6 USC IS Policy Manual, supra, at F .2(B)(1) (in evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional 
publication, major trade publication, or major media, relevant factors include the intended business audience (for 
professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade 
publications and other major media). 
6 
§ 204.5(h)(3). We also need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 6 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding 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 those progressing toward the top. Matter ofPrice, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (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 ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal 11), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal 1), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at *1 (D.D.C. 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, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 918 (finding that "arguably one of the most famous 
baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or 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 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)(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner among the 
upper echelon in his field. 
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. 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
7