dismissed O-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15526879 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 5, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a university, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's classification as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, 
a visa classification available to individuals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through 
sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(O)(i) . 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of 
extraordinary ability in athletics: either receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or at least 
three of eight possible forms of documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
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 
Section 101(a)(15)(O)(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 define "extraordinary ability 
in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "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) . 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary 's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements . A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
1 See._l ______ ...,~ with a validity period of May 1, 2017 to April 30, 2020. 
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) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 10l(a)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii).2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner employs the Beneficiary as an assistant .... ! ___ _.I coach. 
A. Eligibility Claims 
In its initial cover letter, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary met three of the eight regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B): awards at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), memberships at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2), and published material at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner maintained the Beneficiary 
eligibility for only these three criteria. The Director subsequently denied the petition, determining that 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfied any of the claimed criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues the Beneficiary's eligibility for the previously claimed three criteria, 
and, for the first time on appeal, contends that she meets three additional criteria: judging at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4), critical or essential capacity at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7), and high 
salary at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). However, as the Petitioner did not make these claims before 
the Director, either at the time it filed the petition or in response to the Director's RFE, we will not 
consider these claims in our adjudication of this appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 
(BIA 1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence 
submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of 
proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec 533 (BIA 1988). 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, ·'truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
B. Evidentiary Requirements 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
The Petitioner argues: 
The [Director] also dismissed [the Beneficiary's] membership in the only, to date, 
Professional! I League as inconsequential and not an example of 
"membership is associations in the field for which classification is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members" because "the beneficiary was paid 
to be on the Dream Team and [the Petitioner] did not provide documentation on how 
she was selected to be a member of either team. The record does not demonstrate she 
was selected because of her outstanding achievements in her field of endeavor." The 
Service ignores the documentation presented which established that the so-called 
"Dream Team" was a once in a lifetime initiative which, while it did not last, was the 
first time a professional I I team had ever been formed at a national 
level. Documentation concerning its gestation, membership and activities was 
provided to the [Director] and therefore, it is difficult to understand how the [Director] 
could state that there was no information about selection processes and other key 
characteristics of [the Beneficiary's] membership in and performance with the team. 
Although the Petitioner broadly claims the submission of documentation, the Petitioner does not 
specify the evidence or identify which documentation supports its assertions. Regardless, the record 
reflects that at initial filing, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "was founding member of the 
United States Professional I . I League I I 'Dream Team' which was the first ever 
professional ~-----~~league where the players were paid a salary to compete at a high 
level." While the Petitioner referenced a "badge," "a letter froml .... __ ~=~____,~' "cards," and "other 
proof of her membership," the record does not show that the Petitioner submitted this evidence at 
initial filing in this proceeding. 
The Director issued an RFE stating that the Petitioner "did not submit any evidence to support the 
claims in [its] letters" regarding the Beneficiary's membership with thel I and afforded the 
Petitioner an opportunity to provide additional documentation. In response, the Petitioner copied its 
same claims from its initial cover letter. The record does reflect that the Petitioner presented letters, 
I I programs, biographic material, articles, and a screenshot from Wikipedia. In denying the 
petition, the Director concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary was selected 
because of her outstanding achievements in her field of endeavor. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields." Thus, the burden remains with the Petitioner to not only establish the 
Beneficiary's membership but to also demonstrate that those memberships require outstanding 
3 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. While the 
Petitioner argues the significance of I I being the first ever national level professional I I I I team, the Petitioner does not explain how that shows that membership requires outstanding 
achievements and reflects that judging is comprised of recognized national or international experts. 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner claims that it submitted evidence relating tol ~ membership, 
the Petitioner does not point out which, if any, evidence displays the mejbership(equirements. Here, 
the evidence presented confirms the Beneficiary's participation with the without establishing 
that membership requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a letter froml I andl I promotional material. 3 
As the Petitioner did not present these documents to the Director in its initial filing or in response to 
the Director's RFE, we will not consider them in our adjudication of this appeal. Soriano, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 766; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533. The Petitioner also offers two previously 
submitted documents confiring thf Beneficiary's participation with the I I however, the 
evidence does not show that membership requires outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfied the criterion relating to memberships. 
Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility regarding awards and published material, 
we need not reach these additional grounds. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary 
requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), we reserve these issues.4 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification 
as an alien 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. 
3 The letter froml I is dated after the Director's decision; and therefore, is not the letter referenced in the 
Petitioner's initial cover letter. 
4 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 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4