dismissed O-1A Case: Boxing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-B-G-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 26, 2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a boxing gym, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a foreign national of extraordinary 
ability in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition on two grounds. First, the Director denied 
the petition because the Petitioner did not submit a written advisory opinion from the appropriate 
consulting entity, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii). Second, the Director determined that the 
exhibits did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements applicable to foreign nationals of extraordinary 
ability in the athletics, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) (a major, internationally recognized 
award) or (B) (at least three of eight possible forms of documentation). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
maintains that the Beneficiary is eligible for the classification sought. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 101 ( a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified beneficiary whq has 
extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 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. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) provides, in pertinent part: 
"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 of the field of 
endeavor." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate a beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the beneficiary's achievements 
Matter ofT-B-G-
in the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, intematiomUly recognized 
award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient 
qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the eight categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.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, the petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(iii)(C). 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(D) provides that petitions for 0 foreign 
nationals shall be accompanied by a written advisory opinion(s) from the appropriate consulting 
entity or entities. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(5)(ii) further details the consultation 
requirements for an 0-1 foreign national of extraordinary ability, in pertinent part, as follows: 
(A) Content. Consultation with a peer group in the area of the alien's ability 
(which may include a labor organization), or a person or persons with 
expertise in the area of the alien's ability is required in an 0-1 petition for an 
alien of extraordinary ability. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, seeking to classify the 
Beneficiary as a foreign national of extraordinary ability as a Professional Boxer so that he may 
compete in boxing tournaments for a period of three years. The record indicates that the Beneficiary is 
a 22-year-old welterweight boxer who has participated in boxing competitions between 2011 and 
2015 in Mexico, his native country. At the time the Petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition it 
indicated on the 0 and P Classification Supplement to Form 1-129 that an appropriate labor 
organization exists, however, in response to the question whether it was submitting the required 
consultation or written advisory opinion it specifically marked the option "N/A." The Petitioner did 
not provide a copy of a consultation or a request for a consultation from a peer group or labor 
organization when it provided initial evidence in support of the petition. 
Accordingly, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), advising the Petitioner that it must 
submit a consultation from the national office of an appropriate labor union or a consultation from an 
appropriate U.S. peer group. Although the Petitioner submitted a response to the RFE, it did not 
submit the requested consultation, or acknowledge this request. The Director denied the petition, in 
part, because the Petitioner has not met the written consultation requirement set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2( o )(2)(ii), as it has neither submitted the required written consultation nor established that an 
appropriate peer group or labor organization does not exist. On appeal, counsel does not specifically 
acknowledge or address the Director's finding that this requirement was not met. Since the 
Petitioner has neither submitted the required consultation nor established that an appropriate peer 
group or labor organization does not exist, the appeal will be dismissed on this issue. 
The remaining issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary qualifies for 0-1 classification as a foreign national with extraordinary ability in 
athletics. The Director determined that the Petitioner's submitted evidence of the Beneficiary's 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-B-G-
boxing record and ranking did not satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), 
and did not satisfy three ofthe eight evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). On appeal, 
counsel for the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary is qualified for 0-1 classification. In a 
statement accompanying the appeal, the Petitioner states that "[w]e do understand a lot of 
information was missing. But now we will provide all this new information and [we are] asking to 
please allow [the Beneficiary] to work and train in the United States." The Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary "is now the ... rank[ed] in the Nation and rank[ed) 
in the world." 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence without addressing how it demonstrates the 
Beneficiary's eligibility under the relevant regulatory evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii). The Petitioner also provides copies of documents previously submitted into the 
record. 1 The new evidence is comprised of the Beneficiary's foreign-language professional license 
from the boxing commission of Mexico; a copy of his biographic page from 
the website a letter from him describing his work/training activities at the 
sport training gym where he is employed in Mexico; a fore1gn-language employment verification 
letter from a representative of that gym; and a foreign.;.language article from 
pertaining to an additional boxing match in which he fought on 2015. 
The regulation at 8 . C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3} states: "Any document contammg foreign language 
submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she iSl 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English." As the Petitioner has not provided a 
translation of the above-referenced license, employment verification letter or the article, we cannot 
determine whether the evidence supports the Petitioner's claims. 
The remaining evidence that the Petitioner submits on appeal pertains to boxing matches in which 
the Beneficiary fought after the date when the petition was filed on November 3, 2015, including 
articles published in and discussing his win in a national 
championship match in 2015, a letter from fight promoter an 
additional letter from the petitioning gym, and a document listing the Beneficiary's ranking in the 
welterweight classification as of 2016. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire·Corp., 
17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg' l Comm'r 1978). As such, we will not consider this new evidence submitted 
on appeal. Finally, even if we were to consider the articles they have diminished probative value, as 
the Petitioner submitted translations that do not comport with the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3), but, instead are uncertified and are summary translations rather than representing the 
whole foreign language document. 
1 The Petitioner did not provide any statement , either with the initial petition , in response to the RFE, indicating how the 
submitted documents relate the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii), although the Dir:ector specifically 
advised the Petitioner in the RFE that it must explain the significance of the submitted documentary evidence. 
3 
Matter ofT-B-G-
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-B-G-, ID# 22055 (AAO Sept. 26, 2016) 
4