dismissed EB-1A Case: Soccer

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 25638922 Date : MAY 17, 2023 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a soccer academy, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a soccer coach 
under the first preference immigrant classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U .S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )( I )(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 record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability either as the recipient 
of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, or as someone who 
satisfied at least three of the ten regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I) 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 
1 The record indicates that the Beneficiary is current ly in the United States in 0-1 nonimmigrant status. Although we 
acknowledge that this status relates to extraordinary ability, the record of proceeding for the approved nonimmigrant 
petition is not before us, and we cannot determine whether the facts in that case were the same as those in the present 
proceeding . Further , the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is 
adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, and case law. 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. Philharmoni c Orchestra v. INS , No. 98-2855 , 2000 WL 282785 , at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
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 
international recognition of a beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then it must provide sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that the beneficiary 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 demonstrates that the beneficiary 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 Petitioner is a youth soccer club that operates the lin Utah and is dedicated to the 
development of youth soccer. It states that as a result of the Beneficiary's "international renown as 
one of the world's leading coaches," employing him will enhance its club's reputation and benefit the 
entire U.S. soccer community. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner does not claim or submit evidence to show that the Beneficiary received a major, 
internationally recognized award. Rather, it claims that the Beneficiary qualifies for EB-IA 
classification because he satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The Director found that the Beneficiary met only one of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which relates to his performance in a leading or 
critical role in an organization with a distinguished reputation. We agree with the Director's finding, 
which is supported by such evidence as the Petitioner's informational materials listing the 
Beneficiary's position as "Head of Futures Elites" players as well as articles and letters discussing the 
Beneficiary's positions as head coach of the Football Club and I I Football 
Club. 
2 
Accordingly, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfies the evidentiary 
requirements of at least two other criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets four other 
criteria,2 three of which we will analyze below, commencing with the following: 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for 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) 
In order to meet this criterion, a noncitizen must show that they are a member in an association in their 
field, that this association requires outstanding achievements of their members, and that this 
requirement is judged by national or international experts in the field. The Petitioner claims this 
criterion on the basis of the Beneficiary's membership in thel !Technical Football 
Commission I I and his attainment of the Level A Coaching License from the Union of 
European Football Associations (UEF A). Regarding the former, the Director acknowledged the 
Petitioner's submission of letters and information about the organization but concluded that no 
evidence was provided to show thatl Irequires outstanding achievements of its members as 
judged by recognized national or international soccer experts. On appeal, the Petitioner points to a 
previously submitted letter, which focuses on the Beneficiary's membership in lbut it does not 
address the lack of evidence pertaining to the organization's membership requirements. As such, the 
Petitioner has not established thatl Irequires outstanding achievements of its members as judged 
by recognized national or international soccer experts. 
Turning to the Beneficiary's association with the UEFA, the Director determined that evidence of a 
coaching license issued to the Beneficiary by the UEF A is insufficient to show his membership in that 
organization. On appeal, the Petitioner restates, verbatim, its claim concerning "the difficulty and 
prestige of membership" in the UEF A and once again lists the Level A license requirements, arguing 
that eligibility for membership is open only to those who "have worked substantially in the field" and 
demonstrated to UEF A experts "that they have reached the top of their field." Although the Petitioner 
points to appeal exhibit C to support this claim, the exhibits are not labeled, thus making it unclear 
which documents represent evidence that pertains to UEF A membership requirements. We have, 
however, reviewed the documents submitted. Moreover, most of the supporting evidence on appeal 
consists of resubmitted documents that had been originally provided in support of the petition and in 
response to a request for evidence (RFE). And while the Petitioner submits a copy of the Beneficiary's 
UEF A A Diploma along with a list of requirements for attaining the UEF A A coaching license, it 
offers no evidence establishing the Beneficiary's membership in the UEFA or the UEFA's 
membership requirements. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Because the Petitioner has not provided evidence establishing that the UEF A requires outstanding 
achievements of their members nor established that the Beneficiary is a member of the UEFA, and 
2 The Petitioner initially claimed that the Beneficiary meets the evidentiary requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), which pertains to receipt of lesser national or internationally recognized prizes or awards of excellence. 
However, the Petitioner does not pursue its claim to this criterion on appeal, and we therefore will not address this criteria 
in our analysis. 
3 
likewise has not provided evidence establishing thatl requires outstanding achievements of their 
members, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Next, we will discuss the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), which requires the following: 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 
The phrase "as a judge" in the regulations implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either 
on a panel or individually; the regulation also requires evidence showing that the Beneficiary actually 
participated in judging the work of others "in the same or allied field of specialization." Id. Here, the 
Director determined that a letter discussing the Beneficiary's former position as a youth technical 
manager at a youth soccer academy did not serve as evidence that he met this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's determination, pointing out that the Beneficiary 
served as head coach for professional soccer teams and judged "numerous youth individuals in the 
field of soccer" as part of his role with the I !Commission; the Petitioner claims that this role 
"was critical" to the global advancement of soccer because it required the Beneficiary to "review" 
individual players and make decisions "that impacted the sport as a whole." As proof that the 
Beneficiary was successful in this role, the Petitioner provided evidence showing that the Beneficiary 
received an award for his "contribution and significant achievement in the field." Although receiving 
an award indicates that the Beneficiary's work was considered, it is not evidence that the Beneficiary 
has participated, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others. . Nor has the 
Petitioner shown that either coaching or recruiting players and coaches are responsibilities that 
constitute the Beneficiary's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the field. As such, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's adverse finding regarding 
this criterion. 
Lastly, we will address the Petitioner's assertion that Beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), which requires the following: 
Evidence ofthe individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only were the contributions original, but 
also that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a 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. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 
4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013). 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's "original coaching strategies" 
contributed to the development of "world class coaches" and points to previously submitted letters 
from the Beneficiary's former colleagues and professional contacts in the soccer domain. Many of 
the authors describe the Petitioner's professional accomplishments and the specific results he achieved 
4 
for teams and individual players. However, the authors do not identify any original contributions, nor 
do they provide specific, detailed information explaining how the contributions have been majorly 
significant in the field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 3 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. 4 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). 
Here, the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary positively influenced and impacted a team or 
individual players, but it does not support a finding that the Beneficiary affected or significantly 
contributed to the field of soccer coaching. The letters do not describe any specific methods or 
techniques the Beneficiary developed to support a finding that his contributions to players and teams 
are original. Even if any of the soccer clubs in which the Beneficiary participated as a coach used 
policies, strategies, or methods that he developed, this would not demonstrate his impact or influence 
in the overall field of soccer. 5 Because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's 
achievements as a soccer coach are original contributions which have been of major significance to 
the sport of soccer, we conclude that the Beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
B. Reserved Issues 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary meets the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which 
relates to published material about the Beneficiary in major trade or media publications. However, 
given the deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets 
three of the four evidentiary criteria claimed on appeal, and would not establish that he met three out 
of ten criteria even if we considered the final claim. Therefore, we need not determine whether he 
meets the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), nor do we need to provide the 
type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we will 
reserve these issues. 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields. 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 not shown that the significance of the 
3 See generally USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 at 8-9, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 
T-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADl 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 
2010), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
4 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff' din part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
5 See generally USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also 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). 
5 
Beneficiary's work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that 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 that the Beneficiary has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, 
and that he is one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6