dismissed EB-1A Case: Sports Instruction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21035380 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 28, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, al I instruction school, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a chief _ 
instructor and president, 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 Beneficiary had 
satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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 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 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 
scholar ly 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 internationa l 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 fina l merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F . Supp . 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Was h. 201 1). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Beneficiary 's Field of Expertise 
In Part 6 of the petition, the Petitioner listed the Beneficiary 's job title for the proposed employment 
as president , chief I I instructor. In addition, the petitioner indicated the beneficiary 's job 
description as chief I I instructor, safety coordinator ,I I lesson designer , and marketing 
supervisor. In the supporting cover letter , Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "intends to continue 
using his skills as al Ito instruct newl I that aspire to becomel I 
themselves." On appeal , the Petitioner argues: 
[T]he Service ... failed to understand how Beneficiary's career as a is 
related to his position as President [for the Petitioner]. . . . [The Petitioner's] ability to 
offer the curriculum is dependent upon having 
Beneficiary's 
design, manage and teach 
the programs . The President , Chief Instructor is a position that must be 
occupied by a person with experience during at the highest levels , here [the 
Beneficiary] had reached the pinnacle of I and now incorporates 
these talents. Therefore , Beneficiary's career as al I is essential to prove that he is 
part of a small percentage ofl !nationals that have reached the pinnacle of 
I I 
Beneficiary has competed as a in many championships around the world. 
It is the experience gained throughout his career as a that established the 
foundation to become an extraordinary instructor .... 
. . . It is argued that the Service failed again to recognize how Beneficiary's I 40 plusl 
year career as al I is related to his position as President, Chief 
Instructor. Beneficiary's position exists as a continuation of his career in 
from to the pinnacle, I I Beneficiary 's 
extraordinary ability as lis not only commendable to his but a 
necessary legacy to be offered employment as Pre sident [for the Petitioner) .. . . 
2 
As indicated above, the Beneficiary intends to work in the United States as president of a __ 
I I instruction school and chiefl I instructor. The Beneficiary does not intend to 
compete I I The statute and regulations require a beneficiary's national or international 
acclaim to be sustained and that he or she seeks to continue work in the area of expertise in the United 
States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a I I instructor and a I I share 
knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, I I 
instructionl !management and competitive are not the same area of expertise. This 
interpretation has been upheld in federal court. In Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), 
the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" 
as working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not 
necessarily in any profession in that field. For example, Lee's 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. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area; see also 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). 
While we acknowledge the possibility of a beneficiary's extraordinary claim in more than one field, 
such as I I and I I instruction, a petitioner, however, must demonstrate "by clear 
evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise." See 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 1 In this case, based on the record before us, the Beneficiary 
intends to continue to work in the area ofl school management andl I instruction rather than 
competing as I Thus, the Petitioner must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
through the Beneficiary's achievements as al lschool manager andl I instructor. 
1 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(A)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual provides: 
[T]n 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 USCTS 
can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of expertise. 
Because the record reflects that the Beneficiary has not competed as a I in over 15 years and has not achieved 
any recent national or international acclaim as we need not consider whether the Beneficiary's competitive 
achievements have an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability within his area of expertise in 
school management and instruction. 
3 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or demonstrated that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he must satisfy at least three of the alternate 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director determined 
that the Beneficiary fulfilled only one criterion - judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains the Beneficiary's eligibility for three additional criteria. After reviewing the 
record, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets the requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that a beneficiary received prizes or 
awards, and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficia "won 1st place in the 1982 
Series championship," "won the cham ionship in 1993," "has received 
dozens of trophies for professional championships and events in his decades of active 
competition," and his "last major award before retiring in 2001 was 1st place as al in the 
I IPanamericana championship." For the reasons discussed above, these awards relate to the 
Beneficiary's prior career as a I and will not be considered in his area of expertise as a 
I !school manager and instructor. 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 contends that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on his induction into 
the I. The Petitioner submitted a letter froml I stating 
that the Beneficiary was inducted "for [his] accomplishments and contributions to I I 
I I in regional, national and international competition and as a builder to promote 
I I" Further, the Petitioner provided screenshots from website regarding the 
nominating process and a reference letter from praising the Beneficiar in the 
The evidence, however, does not indicate that his induction into was 
based on the recognition of his achievements as a I school manager orl instructor 
does not further elaborate and explain that the Beneficiary received his induction into 
on his achievements and recognition inl I school management or _ instruction. 
Indeed,I references the Beneficiary's career in "regional, national and international competition 
and as a builder" as determining factors for his induction. 
Without evidence showing that he received nationally or internatiol ally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in his field of I school management or instruction, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
4 
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 satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must show 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 sou ht. 3 On a eal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's 
membership with the meets this criterion. The Petitioner 
references a letter from who confirmed the Beneficiary's membership and 
stated that "a ___ must have successfully competed in major professional events and have a 
demonstratable record of excellence." In addition, the Petitioner submitted! I bylaws reflecting 
that regular membership requires I who have participated successfully in major 
professional events, i.e.l lwho were major series champions and/or majorl I or 
championship winners in widely-recognized lesser series; at a minimum, must have a demonstrable 
record of excellence, such as recurring podium finishes." Here, the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary fulfilled this criterion based on his membership withl I through I 
school management orl I instruction rather than as a competitive! I 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. 33d at 837. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary's 
membership with meets this criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on membership 
withl land references a letter from I who stated that 
"[t ]he largest sanctioning body in the USA founded in 1944 - has certified [ the Petitioner] 
as an approved, accredited training provider in accordance with its rules and regulations." The letter, 
however, does not reflect that the Beneficiary is a member of I I rather, the letter cites to the 
Petitioner's membership. Moreover, the letter does not indicate the membership requirements for 
I I nor does it show that outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts, are required for membership. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary is a member of and that membership meets the regulatory 
requirements of this criterion. 
As such, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary fulfills the criterion. 
e. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although users has approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
petitions filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude users from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many F orrn 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after users approves prior 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual. supra. at F.2(B)(2) (providing an example of admission to membership in the National 
Academy of Sciences as a foreign associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, and 
membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
5 
nonimmigrant pet1t10ns. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. at 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajfd, 905 F. 2d at 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our 
authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is 
comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. 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. Philharmonic Orchestra v. 
INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three criteria. Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility 
for an additional criterion on appeal regarding published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), we 
need not address this ground because the Beneficiary cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement 
of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 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. 5 
Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not 
support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the Beneficiary's acclaim and recognition 
required for the classification sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for 
the Beneficiary, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those 
progressing toward the top. See Matter of Price, 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 of Homeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 
(D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of 
prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), 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 that the significance of the 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 he is one of the small percentage who has 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). 
4 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(3). 
5 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 Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
(BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6 
The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his 
field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's 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. 
7