dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Sports

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20210933 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 18, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a sports and culture envoy, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203 (b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record does not 
establish the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability . On appeai 
the Petitioner reasserts that she qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences arts or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens 
of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available .. . to qualified immigrants 
who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their 
equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, 
arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national 
economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... the Attorney General may, when the 
Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the 
requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in 
the United States. 
For the purpose of determining eligibility under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, "exceptional ability" 
is defined as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, 
arts, or business." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The regulations further provide six criteria, at least three 
of which must be satisfied, for an individual to establish exceptional ability: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other 
institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing 
that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for 
which he or she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or ce1iification for a particular profession 
or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
In determining whether an individual has exceptional ability under section 203 (b )(2)(A) of the Act, 
the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school or 
other institution of learning or a license to practice or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of such exceptional ability. Section 
203(b)(2)(C) of the Act. 
2 
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 dete1mination); see also 
Visinscaiav.Beers,4F. Supp.3d 126, 131-32(D.D.C.2013);Rijalv. USCJS, 772F. Supp.2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director concluded that the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies 
for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. Specifically, the Director concluded that the 
record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) but it satisfies none of the other criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F), of which atleastthree are required. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), (C), and (F). The Petitioner also 
asserts, in the alternative, that comparable evidence establishes that she qualifies for classification as 
an individual of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). The Petitioner does not assert on 
appeal, and the record does not support the conclusion, that she satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (D), or (E). For the reasons discussed below, the record does not establish that 
the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
First, we withdraw the Director's conclusion that the record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). In the decision, the extent of the Director's analysis of that criterion is as follows: 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation 
The [P]etitioner has met this criterion. 
The extent of the Director's discussion of the same criterion in a prior request for evidence (RFE) was 
identical. The Director did not identify what evidence establishes that the Petitioner has either a 
license to practice any particular profession or a certification for a particular profession or occupation. 
As noted above, the Petitioner described her job title in the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Workers, as "sports/culture envoy;" however, the initial evidence submitted in support of the Form 
I-140 did not establish, specifically, what the "sports/culture envoy" endeavor would entail. In 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner clarified that her endeavor would entail "the establishment of my 
own I academy aimed at cultivating the next generation of top-notch American! I 
players and to further increase the popularity of this unique sport among American public in general." 
The Petitioner specified that she "personally will play a major role in the day-to-day operation and 
management of this institute by fully utilizing my previous experience as a [h ]ead [ c ]oach of the 
team of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs The Petitioneralso asserted that the endeavor 
3 
would involve "the establishment of my own sports public relations firm to fully devoted to [sic] the 
further promotion and marketization of I with the goal of gradually transforming it into an 
American mainstream sporting event." 
The record does not establish that coaching others to playl I owning and operating ::e=J 
academy, or owning and operating a sports public relations firm requires a license to practice 
the profession or ce1iification for a particular profession or occupation, as contemplated by 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). On appeal, the Petitioner does not identify any particular evidence in the record 
that is a license or certification to coach others to play to own and operate al I 
academy, or to own and operate a sports public relations firm, beyond asserting that she has"[ a] license 
to practice the profession lcoach)." We note that, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
submitted a copy of an English translation of a letter from the I I 
Association that states the following: "In line with the professional technical qualification requirement 
and our comprehensive assessment of your qredentials, this letter confirms that effective January 1, 
2008, you have beencertifiedasl._ ____ 1st [C]lass Coach." However, the letter is not supported 
by corroborating evidence that establishes such a certification is required to work as al I 
coach in I the United States, or elsewhere. Because the record does not support the conclusion 
that the petitioner satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), we withdraw the Director's 
conclusion that "[the Petitioner] has met this criterion." 
A. At Least 10 Years of Full-Time Experience in the Occupation 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) requires evidence in the form ofletter(s) from current or 
former employer(s) showing that the Petitioner has at least 10 years of full-time experience in the 
occupation. As addressed above, although the job title provided in the Form I-140 is "sports/culture 
envoy," ththe Petitioner clarified in response to the RFE that the occupation would primarily be a 
coach, with other activities in public relations and management. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that "there are more than 8 letters, confirming the [Petitioner's] employment, which is more 
than 10-year full [sic] time engagement." Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, however, the record 
does not establish that the Petitioner has any full-time experience coaching I I or in public 
relations or management. 
The record contains a letter dated May 2021 from the 
I I Sports School." The letter asserts that the Petitioner "served as part-time coach for ou 
I I team" from June 2008 until January 2016. The letter reiterates that the Petitioner worked part-
time during that period, performing tasks "which normally are done by full time coaches." 
The record also contains a letter dated June 2021 from Chair of the 
National Offshore Oil Comoration. The letter asserts that, since July 2008, the Petitioner "has been 
serving as coach for our I I team ... three times a week, a total of 8 hours/wk." 
Next, the record contains a letter dated January 2020, indicating it is from the Union Committee of the 
; however, the letter does not identify the author's name or position on the 
committee The letter asserts that the Petitioner "has been serving as the Coach of the I 
Association of the for many years;" however, it does not specify how 
4 
many years the Petitioner has been serving as that coach and whether she has been serving as that 
coach full time. 
Although the record also contains a letter from formerl Ambassador to the 
Republic of Colombia, discussing the Petitioner's coaching experience, that letter is not from a current 
or former employer and, furthermore, it does not specify how many years the Petitioner worked as a 
I lcoach or whether she did so full time. See id. The other letters in the record address the 
Petitioner's experience as al player, not as a coach; therefore, they do not address the 
Petitioner's experience in the occupations of lcoach, public relations, or management. 
In summation, the record does not contain evidence in the form of letters from current or former 
employers showing that the Petitioner has at least 10 years offitll-time experience in the occupations 
of I coaching, public relations, or management. See id. Thus, the record does not satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
B. Recognition for Achievements and Significant Contributions to the Industry or Field 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) requires evidence ofrecognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or 
business organizations. On a eal, the Petitioner asserts that four letters-from the head coach of the 
Portugal National Team, the former head coach of the I INationall I 
Team, the Embassy o a and the satisfy this criterion. We note again 
that, after initially describing the job title on the Form I-140 generally as "sports/culture envoy," in 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner clarified that her endeavor is to work as the owner, manager, and 
operator of a lacademy and as the owner and operator of a public relations firm "fully 
devoted to the further promotion and marketization of Accordingly, the record indicates 
that the Petitioner's endeavor would not be a general "sports/culture envoy," promoting all sports as a 
form of culture; the Petitioner's endeavor would specifically be a coach ofl players and a 
promoter ofl I Therefore, the record indicates that the industry, for the purposes of 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), is the industry of I 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has 
been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry ofl I First 
the record contains an undated letter from "coach of the Portugal National I I 
Team I, , The letter asserts that the Petitioner "was a prominent player who captured the 
grand awards including championship of !International Invitation com etition, I I 
(2002J Portugal) and Championship ofl (2003, 
Portugal)." However, the record does not establish that winning the _ International Invitation 
competition and the I I are the types of achievements and significant contributions to 
the industry contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). For example, the record does not establish 
the requirements, if any, to qualify for participating in those competitions; the number of other 
participants in the competition; the level oflocal, national, and international attention the competitions 
drew from spectators and fellowl I players; and otherrelevantdetails aboutthe competitions. 
Likewise, the record also contains a letter dated May 2020 froml former head coach of 
the INationall Team. The letter asserts that the Petitioner "was among the top 20 
5 
most outstanding! M players nationally under age 18" when she was selected to the I I 
National Youth I Team in 2000 and 200 I. However, beyond being selected to the national 
team and being among the top 20 youth I I players in the letter does not address 
achievements and significant contributions to the industry that the Petitioner made. 
Next, the record also contains a letter from the Embassy of the in the 
Republic of Colombia dated January 2014, addressed to the Embassy of the Republic of Colombia. 
The letter indicates that the Petitioner "will visit Colombia from May 16 to 24 of this year in order to 
participate in a I IColombiaFriendshi Tournament, organized by the Diplomatic 
Mission and the Colombian ____ Federation, to commemorate the 35-year diplomatic 
relations of our countries." However, similar to the letter from the coach of the Portugal National 
I ITeam, the Embass letter does not establish that the Petitioner's participation in the 
I lcolombia Friendship tournament is the type of achievement and significant 
contribution to the industry of ___ _.contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). For 
example, the record does not establish the requirements, if any, to qualify for participating in the 
I Colombia Friendship I I tournament; the number of other participants in the 
tournament; whether the Petitioner would participate as a player, coach, or otherwise; the level of 
local, national, and international attention the tournament drew from spectators and fellowl I 
players; and other relevant details about the tournament. 
As discussed above, the record contains a letter dated January 2020, indicating it is from the Union 
Committee of the however, the letter does not identify the author's name 
or position on the committee. The letter asserts that the Petitioner "made great contributions to the 
improvement of the technical level of the members of the I Association of our I. 
At the same time, [the Petitioner] has also carried out a lot of meaningful work in the popularization 
and promotion ofl las a form of public sports." However, the letter does not elaborate on 
the "contributions" the Petitioner made; how she improved the technical level of players; 
the nature and specific results of the work the Petitioner carried out to popularize and promot 
I land other relevant details that may establish whether the Petitioner's work was the type of 
achievement and significant contribution to the industry of I contemplated by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
In summation, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry of by peers, governmental entities, or professional 
or business organizations, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
C. Comparable Evidence 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that, if the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) 
"do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence 
to establish the beneficiary's eligibility" for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. In 
contrast to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), which addresses a broader "industry or 
field," the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) specifically focuses on the particular occupation. 
As noted above, the Petitioner clarified in response to the RFE that her particular occupation would 
be the owner, manager, and operator of al I academy, wherein she would coach I 
6 
to others, and the owner and operator of a public relations firm that would specifically promote 
I I 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "criteria for exce tional ability listed at 8.CFR Section 
204.5(K)(3), do not readily apply to the filed [sic] of The Petitioner asserts that her 
"national/international award-winning record, recognition from N ationall I [sic] and, 
Embassy of arare more appropriate in evaluation of the [Petitioner's] 
exceptional ability." However, the evidence the Petitioner asserts is comparable, as contemplated by 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii), does not relate to her abilities in the occupations of a I I coach, 
public relations agent, or business manager. To the extent that the Petitioner's awards, discussed 
above, establish her ability, they relate to herl playing ability, not to her coaching, public 
relations, or business management abilities. Relatedly, the letter from the fonner head coach of the 
I National! ITeam, discussed above, refers to the Petitioner's perfonnance as a youth 
Ip layer, not her coaching, public relations, or business mana ement abilities. Additionally, 
as discussed above, the letter from the Embassy of the in the Republic of 
Colombia addresses the Petitioner's participation in the _ Colombia Friendship! I 
Tournament; however, it does not specify the nature in which the Petitioner participated. Therefore, 
it does not establish that the Petitioner has exceptional! !coaching, public relations, or 
business management abilities. 
The Petitioner does not otherwise identify on appeal comparable evidence that may establish that she 
has exceptional ability in the occupations of  coaching, public relations agent, or business 
manager as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii), and the record does not support such a 
conclusion. 
In summation, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied at least three of the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and, in the alternative, the record does not establish through comparable 
evidence that the Petitioner has exceptional ability as al I coach, public relations agent, or 
business manager as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). Therefore, the record does not 
establish that the Petitioner is an individual of exceptional ability. See section 203(b )(2)(A) of the 
Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2)-(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established that she qualifies for second-preference classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or 
otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7