dismissed O-1A Case: Boxing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 17, 2024 In Re: 34126562 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, an agent, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a boxer and trainer, as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. This 0-1 nonimmigrant visa classification is 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. 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Beneficiary had not 
satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability: either receipt 
of 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). The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 10l(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). If the petitioner demonstrates a criterion 
does not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable evidence to establish 
eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(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) ("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). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner did not indicate or establish the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must demonstrate the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(])-(8). The Director determined the 
Beneficiary fulfilled only one - published material under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(B)(iii)(3). On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains the Beneficiary meets four additional categories. 2 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submits new evidence on appeal. Because the Petitioner was put on notice 
and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider this documentation 
for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted 
together at one time); Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to consider 
new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence 
and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). 
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). 
In order to meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that membership in the association requires 
outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. 3 The Petitioner argues it established the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
criterion based on membership with the "Armenian national boxing team." The record reflects the 
Petitioner submitted the following letters: 
• [The Beneficiary] is an active member of the national boxing team under the auspices of the 
Armenian Boxing Federation, the regulating body of boxing in Armenia, governed by the 
Armenian Olympic Committee. . . . In order to be designated as a member of a national team, 
an athlete must have outstanding achievements and prove himself to be worthy of the 
1 See also 2 users Policy Manual, M.4(C)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanaul. 
2 We consider any previous eligibility claims not raised on appeal to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-. 28 I&N Dec. 
330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter o(R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
3 See generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
2 
distinction. This distinction is only given to a few, highly accomplished athletes throughout 
the world. (A-D-) 
• [The Beneficiary] secured a spot as a key member of the national boxing team, sanctioned by 
the Armenian Boxing Federation, which is a national branch of the Olympic Boxing. As a 
result, he holds a prestigious position as a respected member of the national team, recognized 
by the international governing sports organization. Such recognition is bestowed upon only a 
select few exceptionally accomplished athletes worldwide. In order to be designated as a 
member of a national team, an athlete must prove himself to be worthy of the distinction. 
(N-A-) 
• [The Beneficiary] became an active member of the national boxing team under the auspices of 
the Armenian Boxing Federation governed by the Armenian Olympic Committee. As such, 
he is a national team member in good standing with the international governing sports 
organization. This distinction is only given to a few, highly accomplished athletes throughout 
the world. In order to be designated as a member of a national team, and athlete must prove 
himself to be worthy of the distinction. ( G-Y-) 
The similar language in the letters calls into question whether they were independently prepared by 
the authors, thereby diminishing their probative value. Nevertheless, the letters do not elaborate and 
support their assertions. Although the letters claim that athletes have to prove themselves "to be 
worthy of the distinction," they do not further explain what constitutes being worthy of distinction and 
whether it qualifies as outstanding achievements. Moreover, the letters do not reference sources or 
point to controlling membership requirements, such as bylaws, official regulations, or other 
association requirements or specifications to corroborate their claims. 4 In addition, the letters do not 
indicate or show whether national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements or 
membership, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary meets every element 
of this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary 
met this criterion through comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). Specifically, the 
Petitioner claimed: 
The petitioner hereby presents additional documentation pursuant to the provisions of 
8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C)- Comparable Evidence. 
[The Beneficiary'] honora title of the Master of S orts Certificate No. 
awarded to him by the ______________________ 
4 The record also contains a "Reference" document from the All-Armenian Professional Boxing Federation certifying that 
the Beneficiary is a professional boxer and member without indicating any of the membership requirements. 
3 
D 2016 is comparable to the evidence of his original athletic contributions of major 
significance in the field. The Master of Sports is a government issued award that exists 
in the ex-USSR countries. It has a very high value and significance in the world of 
national sports. The title of Master of Sports is only given to a few athletes who 
managed to acclaim high athletic achievements .... 
Therefore, this additional evidence is comparable in value to the documentation of the 
beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field mentioned at 8 CFR 214.2.(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), as mandated by 8 
CFR 214.2.(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that "athletes do not normally engage in scientific, scholarly, or 
business-related activities. As such, the criterion is not readily applicable in any O-lA case involving 
the field of athletics." 
The regulation of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original 
scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." We agree 
with the Petitioner that the plain language of this criterion does not readily apply to the field of 
athletics. Thus, in order to claim eligibility for this category of evidence through the submission of 
comparable evidence, the Petitioner must demonstrate how the evidence is comparable. 5 
The record reflects the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com 
for "Master of Sport." At the outset, the screenshot states that "[t]he following article is from The 
Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased." Therefore, the 
evidence lacks probative value. Regardless, the screenshot indicates: 
[A] title in sports established in the USSR by a resolution of the Higher Council on 
Physical Culture of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR in 1935. It is 
awarded for life to sportsmen who have fulfilled at official competitions the norms and 
requirements for the title as established by the Uniform All-Union Sports 
Classification. Between 1935 and 1972 the title of Master of Sport was awarded to 
93,200 sportsmen. In 1965, to encourage Soviet Sportsmen to attain increased mastery 
in worlds sports, the Central Council of the Union of Sporting Societies and 
Organizations of the USSR established the title Master of Sport of the International 
Class, which is awarded to victors and prize winners of the Olympic Games, to 
champions of the world, Europe, and the USSR, and to prize winners at the largest 
official international competitions. In late 1972 there were 2,300 international class 
masters in the USSR. 
Although the screenshot provides information about USSR's "Master of Sport" between 1935 and 
1972, the Beneficiary received his "Master of Sports" from the Republic of Armenia in 2016. The 
5 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(3) (instructing that for comparable evidence to be considered, 
the petitioner must explain why the submitted evidence is ·'comparable" to that criterion). 
4 
Petitioner did not present evidence before the Director for a "Master of Sports" from the Republic of 
Armenia or show the relationship between the two. 
Moreover, analysis under the original contributions criterion focuses on whether the beneficiary's 
original work constitutes major, significant contributions in the field. 6 Here, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the Beneficiary's "Master of Sport" is comparable to a major, significant 
contribution in the field. Even if we considered the outdated information from the USSR, 93,200 
individuals received the "Master of Sport" between 1935 and 1972. The Petitioner did not establish 
the significance of the Beneficiary's receipt of the Armenian "Master of Sports," how the 
Beneficiary's title has somehow impacted, influenced, or affected the boxing field in a majorly 
significant manner, or how the title otherwise represents an original contribution of major significance 
in the field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion through the 
submission of comparable evidence. 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). 
If the petitioner is claiming to meet this criterion, then the burden is on the petitioner to provide 
appropriate evidence establishing that the beneficiary's compensation is high relative to others 
working in similar occupations in the field. 7 Examples of past compensation include tax returns, pay 
statements, or other evidence of past salary or remuneration for services. 8 The Petitioner provided a 
"Reference" document from G-H-, president of the I I 
claiming that the Beneficiary's "fee is 25000 USD for each tournament" and "[t]he I I 
gives [the Beneficiary] the the [sic] income from tournaments in cash." Further, the Petitioner 
submitted another reference document from G-H-, who is also the general secretary of the
I I claiming that the Beneficiary's "monthly 
income is 1000 USD in AMD, as wel [sic] as 8000 USD for each tournament" and "[b]etween 
December 2021 and March 2023 he participated in seven fights and received 8000 USD for each fight" 
and "participated in one fight as a member of I land received 25,000 USD." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 8) requires "contracts or other reliable evidence." 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish how the letters constitute reliable evidence. The letters do not 
explain what documents from I lwas reviewed to support the claims of$25,000, $8,000, 
and $1,000. In addition, the Petitioner did not provide financial records or similar documentation from 
I I to corroborate the claims in the letters. Further, the letters lack specific information 
to establish their probative value, such as dates, names of competitors, locations, and other pertinent 
material for boxing matches. 
6 See generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
7 See generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2)(appendix). 
8 Id. 
5 
Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from mintsalary.com for the "average 
Athlete salary in Armenia." However, the Petitioner did not offer comparable salary evidence 
pertaining to the Beneficiary's specific occupation as a boxer in Armenia. In order to meet this 
criterion, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary received a high salary as a boxer rather than a 
high salary to the general occupation of athletes in Armenia. Moreover, even if the Petitioner 
demonstrated the Beneficiary received $25,000 or $8,000 for each fight, the Petitioner did not offer 
evidence comparing how much other boxers received for each fight in Armenia. Because the 
Petitioner did not provide the appropriate evidence to compare the Beneficiary's salary to other boxers 
in Armenia, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary commanded a high salary. 
For all these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary meets 
three additional criteria. Although the Petitioner 
claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for a further criterion on appeal, awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(]), we need not reach this ground, as well as a review of the Director's favorable 
determination of the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), because it 
cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). We also need not provide a totality determination to establish whether the 
Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has 
arisen to the very top of the field. See section 10l(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o)(3)(ii) 
and (iii). 9 Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 1 ° Consequently, the Petitioner has not established 
the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual 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. 
9 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
10 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
6