remanded EB-1A Case: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 12, 2024 In Re: 30232223 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirements for this classification by documenting his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or, in the alternative, by meeting at least three of 
the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant 
to 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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if: they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 Petitioner is a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu athlete and instructor who states he intends to work as a Jiu Jitsu 
specialist or coach in the United States. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the six criteria he claimed to have satisfied: 
judging the work of others in bis field and display of bis work at exhibitions and showcases. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vii). The Director concluded, however, that record did not support the 
Petitioner's claim that he satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii) and (v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director overlooked certain evidence, misapplied U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy guidance addressing extraordinary ability petitions 
involving athletic coaches, and failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to the facts 
presented. Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has met at least one additional criterion. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires documentation of an individual's receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in their field of endeavor. The 
Petitioner submitted evidence of his receipt of gold, silver and bronze medals at competitions 
sponsored by the International Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Federation (IBJJF) in the three years preceding the 
filing of the petition in 2021 . 
The Director, in determining that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
acknowledged the submitted evidence, but emphasized that "the medals awarded to the self-petitioner 
were medals given to [him] as a competitor, not as a coach." The Director therefore concluded that 
he did not establish his awards relate to his field of endeavor. 
As the Petitioner observes on appeal, USCIS policy guidance directly addresses the issue of athletes 
transitioning to coaching: 
2 
Some of the most problematic cases are those in which the beneficiary's sustained 
national or international acclaim is based on his or her abilities as an athlete, but the 
beneficiary's intent is to come to the United States and be employed as an athletic coach 
or manager. Competitive athletics and coaching rely on different sets of skills and in 
general are not in the same area of expertise. However, many extraordinary athletes 
have gone on to be extraordinary coaches. 
Therefore, in 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 USCIS can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of 
expertise. 
Where the beneficiary has had an extended period of time to establish his or her 
reputation as a coach beyond the years in which he or she had sustained national or 
international acclaim as an athlete, depending on the specific facts, officers may place 
heavier, or exclusive, weight on the evidence of the beneficiary's achievements as a 
coach or a manager. 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(A)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Under this policy guidance, 
evidence of acclaim as an athlete cannot suffice by itself to establish extraordinary ability as a coach, 
but USCIS officers can give proportionate weight to evidence of that acclaim when the record also 
shows that the acclaim has continued into a petitioner's coaching career. 
Therefore, the ultimate question is whether the Petitioner has shown that his coaching activity has 
been at a level consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Because acclaim is 
considered in the context of a final merits determination, evaluation of whether the Petitioner has 
achieved sustained acclaim as a coach does not require an underlying finding that he meets the 
underlying evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) based solely on his coaching activities. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Petitioner's claim that the Director erroneously disregarded evidence 
of the awards and prizes he received as a competitive athlete in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. 1 The Petitioner 
provided evidence that he was a silver medalist at the I !Championship in 2019, a two-time 
medalist at the championship, and a bronze medalist at the 
_________ championship. The record contains sufficient evidence to establish that 
these awards satisfy the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner has, therefore, overcome the only stated ground for denial of the petition; the failure to 
satisfy at least three evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). However, granting the 
1 It appears that the Director may have made a similar error in evaluation of evidence submitted in support of the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which requires evidence of published material about the individual in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. relating to the person's work in the field. In a request for evidence (RFE), the 
Director emphasized that the submitted published materials "speak of the petitioner as a competitor in Jiu Jitsu and not as 
a Jiu Jitsu Coach." The Director ultimately determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion but did not state 
with specificity the reasons for reaching that conclusion. 
3 
third initial criterion does not suffice to establish eligibility for the classification the Petitioner seeks. 
The Director must undertake a final merits determination to analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments 
and weigh the totality of the evidence (including the evidence and arguments submitted on appeal) to 
determine if they establish extraordinary ability in the Petitioner's 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. Here, 
as the Petitioner is still competing as a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu athlete and started coaching more recently, 
the Director should determine whether the record demonstrates an overall pattern of sustained acclaim 
and extraordinary ability in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial, we remand this proceeding so 
the Director can render a final merits determination in keeping with the Kazarian framework. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4