dismissed EB-1A Case: Volleyball

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 19, 2024 In Re: 30002128 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a volleyball 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 although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, it did 
not establish, as required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one 
of that small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N 
Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 
26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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 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 
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, 
1343 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner was a professional volleyball player in Brazil for nearly two 
decades until his retirement as an athlete in 2018. At the time of filing in March 2023, he was 
employed as the head soccer coach for a youth volleyball academy in Illinois. 
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 initially claimed that he could meet up to six of the ten 
criteria. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had met four of the evidentiary criteria and therefore 
satisfied the initial evidence requirements for this classification. Specifically, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner submitted evidence establishing the following criteria: his receipt of lesser 
nationally and internationally recognized prizes for his athletic performance, his membership in 
associations requiring outstanding achievement of their members, published material about him and 
relating to his work as an athlete, and evidence that he had performed in a leading or critical role for 
an organization with a distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii) and (viii). 
We will not disturb the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements by meeting at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The Director further determined that the Petitioner claimed, but did not establish, that he could meet 
two additional criteria, including his participation as a judge of the work of others in his field at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and his command of a high salary in relation to others in the field 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(ix). Nevertheless, because the Director determined that the Petitioner met at least three 
of the regulatory criteria, he proceeded to a final merits determination. 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, sustained national or international acclaim and that 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had attained significant successes and achievements as a 
volleyball player resulting in national acclaim in the past as an athlete. The Director concluded, 
however, that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he had sustained national or international acclaim 
and that he is among the small percentage of athletes or coaches at the very top of the field. We note 
that the Director misstated that the Petitioner intends to continue his career in the United States as an 
athlete and coach; we recognize that the Petitioner intends to work as a coach to youth athletes at a 
volleyball academy that he founded as a partnership. Upon review, and for the reasons discussed 
below, we conclude that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this highly restrictive 
classification. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that, on appeal, the Petitioner includes business foundational 
documents and documentation concerning sponsorships for his volleyball academy. These documents 
may be informative to demonstrate his future plans to work as a volleyball coach, his claimed area of 
expertise. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 CFR 204.5(h)(5). However, these documents post-date the 
filing date of the petition, and thus cannot be considered evidence of his asserted extraordinary ability 
at the time of filing the petition in March 2023. A petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing 
through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director mischaracterized evidence, citing several letters 
previously included in the record and explaining why the contents of those letters demonstrate his 
extraordinary ability in the field of professional volleyball. The Petitioner also contends that the 
Director ignored certain evidence, such as the offer of a coaching position from the I 
The Petitioner's appeal brief is supplemented, in part, by new letters from 
the authors of some of the previously submitted letters providing additional details about the 
Petitioner's career. 
The record shows that the Petitioner's career as a professional volleyball player includes high 
placements and wins at dozens of national and international tournaments. The Petitioner won a bronze 
medal at the 20031 I Brazil, and placed ninth 
in the 2004 I IGreece. Letters of support from professional players, 
coaches, and organizations of distinguished reputation-including the International Volleyball 
Federation (or FIVB)-all laude the Petitioner's abilities as a player and describe his renown in the 
volleyball community, and the evidence of record demonstrates the significance of a lengthy and 
3 
I 
highly-ranked volleyball career in Brazil. As noted by the Director, the evidence of record suggests 
that the Petitioner has not played volleyball as a professional competitor since 2018, nearly five years 
prior to the filing of the petition in March 2023. The issue at hand is not whether the Petitioner 
qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability based on previous acclaim as an athlete; the issue is 
whether the Petitioner, a former athlete, has achieved sustained national or international acclaim in his 
intended career as a coach. 
Among the letters of support are letters from the former volleyball player with whom he competed in 
the Olympics; one letter details techniques that the Petitioner suggested and used during several 
competitions from 1999 to 2011 and the resulting placements of the team. This former teammate 
emphasizes that, in 1999 and 2000, the Petitioner served as both a player and coach for the team. He 
states that on more than one occasion, when they did have a coach, the Petitioner overruled strategies 
that the coach had implemented based on his understanding of the conditions of the game. He also 
states the following: 
With his drive and attitude of a coach, which has always been a feature in him, [the 
Petitioner] has helped not only me, but also other relevant names of the sport to develop 
themselves and achieve victory and stardom. 
Letters from other individuals similarly credit the Petitioner for helping them improve their volleyball 
skills and advance their careers. One individual who began playing professionally with the Petitioner 
in 2012 states that in 2013, as a direct result of the Petitioner's teachings, he was "elected the Most 
Improved Player, Rookie of the Year and MVP of the FIVB World Tour." He lists titles and medals 
he received at national and international competitions from 2013 to 2018, as well as his fifth-place 
finish in the 2020 Olympic Garnes. This individual does not disclose whether the Petitioner trained 
with him during this span of time, and the record does not show that the Petitioner played 
professionally with him during this time. Another individual who participated in the Olympics in 2016 
and 2021 credits his award of the FIVB Beach Volleyball World Tour's Most Improved Player in 2010 
to his training with the Petitioner beginning in 2009, stating that they played together for three years. 
A letter from a contemporary player affirms that author's previous partnership and receipt of the 
award. The letter also states the following: 
The professional beach volleyball community, especially in Brazil, is in disbelief that 
the immigration authorities in the US did not recognize [the Petitioner] as one of the 
very few players in the world who not only remained at the top as a player himself for 
over a decade, but also shaped and coached younger athletes who would later represent 
Brazil (and win medals) in Olympic games .... 
The author of this letter, however, does not identify specifically how the Petitioner's work affected 
these athletes' performance beyond their early years in the sport. A letter from a former teammate 
credits the Petitioner with training him early in his career, describing the Petitioner as "the brain of the 
team" who instructed him on the specifics of his gameplay in 2008 and 2009; the author, however, 
does not state whether he trained with the Petitioner prior in the intervening years from 2014 to 2017, 
a period during which he states he won several tournaments. The author adds that the Petitioner "not 
only coached me to transition from a sparring partner to a professional player myself: but also did the 
same for several young players .... " While these letters serve to demonstrate that the Petitioner 
4 
influenced fellow athletes at the beginnings of their careers, they do not sufficiently demonstrate that 
the Petitioner is directly responsible for their successes following years of training. The record does 
not include documentation demonstrating, for example, that the Petitioner continued to train these 
athletes in subsequent years leading to their winning national or international awards during those 
years-outcomes that could demonstrate the Petitioner's national or international acclaim as their 
coach. Although the evidence of record supports a determination that the Petitioner was a talented 
player who shared his knowledge and skill with fellow athletes early in their careers, there is 
insufficient objective evidence to establish whether or how these players' achievements contributed 
to the Petitioner's own acclaim and recognition in the field as a coach. 
Further, while the record includes letters from individuals who "consulted" with the Petitioner in 
recent years concerning their professional sports careers, the record does not demonstrate how such 
consultation is evidence of the Petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim as a coach; while 
these individuals may have been familiar with the Petitioner's successes as an athlete, their knowledge 
of his career does not serve as probative evidence of a career as an acclaimed coach. 
Similarly, evidence of several job offers in recent years to coach volleyball-including from the 
and the does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the Petitioner achieved or sustained acclaim as a coach. Although these employment 
offers may demonstrate the organizations' confidence in the Petitioner's coaching ability based on his 
previous success as an athlete, the offers themselves do not convey recent national or international 
acclaim as a coach. 
Finally, we recognize that the Petitioner relies, in part, on the fact that he has opened a volleyball 
academy as evidence of his sustained acclaim as a coach. A letter from the co-founder of the academy 
explains that it was the Petitioner's reputation as an athlete that gave him the confidence to enter into 
a business partnership in which the Petitioner would work as the head coach at the academy. The co­
founder's knowledge of the Petitioner's previous athletic success does not support the Petitioner's 
claim of sustained acclaim as a coach. And while the Petitioner's previous successes as an athlete­
including as a former Olympic participant-may potentially positively impact the operation of the 
academy and aspiring athletes in the region who utilize its services-it is not clear how his work at an 
academy for youth developing volleyball skills demonstrates national or international acclaim. The 
Petitioner asserts that news coverage in Brazil of his academy's opening is evidence of his acclaim; 
however, this media coverage discusses the Petitioner in terms of his previous success as an athlete 
"in the early 2000s," rather than as a coach. 
On review, the balance of the record demonstrates that the Petitioner was an acclaimed professional 
volleyball player in Brazil who enjoyed success and acclaim early in his career and who played 
competitively for many years longer than other athletes in his field. However, the record does not 
establish that he received or sustained national or international acclaim as a volleyball coach. He did 
not demonstrate through "extensive documentation" that his work coaching and advising individual 
athletes or other sports professionals has brought him the requisite sustained acclaim at a national or 
international level, such that we could conclude that he has 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)(1 )(A) of the Act. As such, the record does not indicate he currently has a degree of recognition 
for his achievements consistent with the sustained acclaim that the statute demands. Moreover, the 
5 
record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner 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; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6