dismissed O-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-U-S-C-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC.l4,2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professional soccer club, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(0)(i). This 0-1 classification makes nonimmigrant 
visas available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not satisfy the evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability in athletics. either 
a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms of documentation. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has provided sufficient evidence of two criteria along with 
comparable evidence of the Beneficiary's eligibility. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the 
appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here. section 101 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work 
in the area of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations include the 
following definition: ''Extraordinary ability in the field of' science. education. business. or athletics 
means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to 
the very top ofthe field of endeavor.'' 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set fcnih the evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii). First a petitioner can 
demonstrate a beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the individual's achievements 
in the field through evidence of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then it must submit 
.
Afclffer ofM-U-S-C-. LLC' 
sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the eight categories of evidence listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). If the petitioner demonstrates that the criteria in paragraph 
(o)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable 
evidence in order to establish the individual's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(iii)(C). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself: 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In 
Matter o{Chawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0), we held that, ·'truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality.'' That decision explains that, pursuant to the 
preponderance of the evidence standard, we ''must 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.'' !d. Accordingly. where a 
petitioner provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine 
whether the totality of the record shows eligibility under section 1 01 (a)(l5)(o )(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Introduction 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and supporting 
documentation, seeking to employ the Beneficiary as a soccer coach for a period of three years. The 
Beneficiary's background includes experience as a soccer coach in Brazil for organizations such as 
and 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the evidentiary criteria described at 
8 C.F.R § 214.2(o )(3)(iii). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the exhibits satisfy two of those 
criteria and that it also submitted comparable evidence of the Beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). As explained below. we find that the exhibits do not satisfy any of the 
evidentiary categories described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) or the comparable evidence provision 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Published material in Jm~fessional or major trade publications or major media about 
the alien. relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought, 
vvhich shall include the title. date. and author o{ such published material. and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J). 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet this criterion. and we 
agree. Specifically. she noted that the published material presented dealt primarily with the 
soccer club, where the Beneficiary coached a minor league team, and did not specifically refer to him. 
The Director also noted that several of the articles provided are not published in major media. 
2 
.
Matter ofM-U-S-C-. LL(' 
On appeaL the Petitioner states that ·'young coaches. who later may go on to become major league 
coaches do not get praise in the major media." It contends that because .. coaches in the minor 
leagues often do not get the credit they deserve either by members of the press or by the general 
public," "the proof of a coach's excellence" is more properly demonstrated through '·testimonials 
from people who went on to very successful careers in the soccer world.·· However, testimonials do 
not satisfy the plain language of the criterion. which requires published material about the 
individual. 1 
Accordingly, we examine the submitted published material in determining whether the Petitioner has 
met the criterion. The Petitioner otTered an article from 
an organization described as ''one of the world's pioneers in the field of consultants in the world of 
sports." The article features the Beneficiary and describes his contributions to youth soccer in Brazil. 
While the article's content is primarily about the Beneficiary and his work with youth soccer, the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that this article was published in a professional or major 
trade publication or other major media as required. 
The remaining articles do not mention the Beneficiary, thus, they are not about him as required. For 
example, the Petitioner provided material from its website entitled. ' 
along with article from entitled · 
Neither article mentions the 
Beneficiary. The excerpts, therefore, are not published material ·'about the alien'' and ''relating to the 
alien's work in the field.'' See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J). Additionally, the Petitioner has not 
offered evidence that either website constitutes a qualifying publication. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not oftered sufficient evidence that material about the Beneficiary and relating 
to his work has been published in professional or major trade publications or major media. 
Accordingly. it has not met this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity fhr 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
The scope of this evidentiary criterion focuses on the relative importance of the Beneficiary's 
position within the scope of the organizations that have employed him. The Petitioner maintains that 
the Beneficiary was employed in a critical or essential capacity as a minor league coach for 
Fluminense. 
The record does not establish, however, that the Beneficiary has been employed in a critical or 
essential capacity for this or any other organization. The Petitioner did not provide sufticient details 
1 
The Petitioner does not specifically state whether it seeks to satisfy the comparable evidence provision with respect to 
this criterion. Regardless, it has not sufficiently demonstrated that the criterion does not readily apply to the 
Beneficiary's occupation, nor has it explained how the submitted testimonials are comparable. 
3 
.
Matter r!fM-U-S-C- . LLC 
regarding when the Beneficiary joined his specific role , or how his contributions were 
critical or essential to the soccer club. it did not submit documentation showing where 
the Beneficiary's position fell within the organizations' general hierarchy, such as evidence of how it 
related to other coaches in the organization or the number of coaches employed. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that several of the athletes that the Beneficiary coached were 
subsequently traded to top European soccer teams ''for millions of dollars, .. and that their 
accomplishments can be attributed to the Beneficiary"s role as a coach with The record 
does not include sufficient detail regarding when the Beneficiary coached these individuals or how his 
work with them was a critical or essential role tor Without more, we cannot conclude that 
the Beneficiary played a critical or essential role. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the letters of recommendation provided are evidence that the 
Beneficiary has been employed in a critical or essential capacity tor However, the letters 
do not describe the manner in which the Beneficiary's role as a coach was critical or essential for the 
soccer club. For example, many of the letters state that the Beneficiary " is a balanced leader and has 
the ability to motivate a large team that seeks good results and fights tor titles.'' 2 One of the 
Beneficiary's students , states that he has "helped me to improve myself' and ·'has an 
extraordinary knowledge of soccer.'' Similarly, a Brazilian sports writer. indicates 
that the Beneficiary is "an extraordinary soccer coach.'' While the Beneficiary has earned the 
admiration of his references, the letters do not demonstrate that his successes are ret1ective of a 
critical or essential role tor an organization or establishment under the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
C. Comparable Evidence 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director ened in not considering the Beneficiary"s 
experience working with minor league players and the letters of recommendation attesting to his 
experience. It contends that ''the extent of his extraordinary abilities shows up mainly with the teams he 
coached tor and the results of the careers of the players he coached as a youth in the professional youth 
leagues." as demonstrated by the letters of recommendation provided. It seeks eligibility under the 
"comparable evidence" regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3 )(iv)(C) because it claims that '·the 
regulatory criteria are not applicable" to "minor league soccer coaches.'' We agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner has not satisfied the comparable evidence provision under 8 C.F .R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) provides that comparable evidence ·'may'· be submitted 
if the criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv) do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. It is the 
Petitioner's the burden to articulate why one or more criteria do not readily apply and how the 
evidence submitted is ·'comparable... The Petitioner claims that several of the criteria do not apply 
2 
We note that, given the similarity of the language used in many of the letters of recommendation, it is unclear whether 
their letters reflect independent observations and thus an informed and unbiased opinion of the Beneficiary's work. 
4 
Matter (~lM-U-S-C-, LLC 
to the minor league youth coaching occupation. It contends that there is not sutlicient published 
material from major media that covers minor league soccer. and that the criteria for membership, 
remuneration. or original contributions similarly do not apply to minor league soccer coaching. 3 
The Petitioner, instead, argues that multiple letters of reference from the Beneficiary's colleagues 
and coaches should be considered as comparable evidence of his extraordinary ability. However, the 
Petitioner has not explained how this evidence is comparable to any of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv), nor has it demonstrated that it is ref1ective of a level of expertise indicating 
that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). For example, the letters do not indicate the extent of the his inf1uence on 
other soccer players or teams, nor do they show his acclaim in the field. As such, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the comparable evidence provision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally 
recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). and the exhibits do not satisfy at least 
three of the evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
Consequently. the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for the 0-1 visa 
classification as a foreign national with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter oj'M-U-S-C-. LLC, ID# 789671 (AAO Dec. 14. 2017) 
1 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that a soccer coach at the "minor league level" would not be able to satisfy these criteria 
because their efforts are not sufficiently recognized by the evidentiary forms listed. However, an individuars inability to 
meet a regulatory criterion does not necessarily establish that the criterion does not readily apply to his occupation. 
Here. the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the four named criteria. under which it seeks eligibilitY. do not 
apply to the Beneficiary's occupation as required by the comparable evidence provision at 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.l(o)(3)(iii)(C).