dismissed O-1A Case: Hockey

Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 28469369 Date: OCT. 2, 2023 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, an international youth hockey program, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a head coach, 
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)(l5)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont 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 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). 
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 101(a)(15)(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)(l)-(8). The Director determined the 
Beneficiary fulfilled only one criterion, high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(8). On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains the Beneficiary meets three additional criteria. 2 
Documentation ofthe alien 's receipt ofnationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor . 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(I) 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that it "provided documentation showing prestige of AAU [Amateur 
Athletic Union] National Championships," and "[t]he letter from the National Chair of AAUI I 
Owas very specific about how [the Beneficiary] contributed to winning the AAU Championship." 
According to screenshots from aausports.org, "the AAU has set the standard for amateur sports in the 
United States with one goal in mind: ' Sports For ALL, Forever,"' and "is dedicated exclusively to the 
promotion and development of amateur sports and physical fitness programs." In additionJ I 
stated that "[f]or the second time in 3 years the team coached by [the Beneficiary] won the AAU 
National Championship," and "[t]his was for his team in the Ul 1 division." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(l) requires "the alien's receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." Although the 
Petitioner submitted evidence regarding the background and history of the AAU, the evidence makes 
no mention of the AAU National Championship, nor does it indicate the national or international 
recognition for excellence in the field. 3 Moreover.I ~etter does not further discuss the AAU 
National Championship and show how the field views winning the AAU National Championship in 
the under 11 years of age division as being tantamount to a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award for excellence. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
1 See also 2 USCIS 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 ofR-A-M- , 25 l&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
3 The record also contains screenshots from Wikipedia regarding the history of the AAU without any mention of the AAU 
National Championship . 
2 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
o_fmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
The Petitioner argues: 
The [Beneficiary] composed a playbook ~ Ithat is used throughout 
the hockey world as indicated through various previously submitted letters. This 
playbook is circulated throughout Slovakia, Canada, Serbia and the US ( even in the 
NHL). The Playbook was even distributed on academia.edu, which is a SCHOLARLY 
platform from such original contributions. The Service did not even consider the letters 
and the prestige of academia.edu as a SCHOLARLY outlet, therefore making the 
playbook a scholarly contribution. 
The Petitioner submitted screenshots from academia.edu reflecting that "Academia suggested your 
papers in [] search results" for various time periods. In addition, the screenshots contain several 
rankings for each search result. Although the Petitioner attached screenshots regarding the mission 
and background of Academia.edu, the Petitioner did not explain the significance of the search results 
or the relevance of the rankings. 4 Here, the screenshots only indicate that '1 Iwas 
uploaded into the database and such playbook was returned as a result of search terms by other users. 
There is no evidence that the searchers were even inquiring about the Beneficiary's playbook. For 
instance the followin search terms resulted in Academia.edu su estin the Beneficia 's la book: 
Without further information and 
explanation, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the data from Academia.edu shows the Beneficiary's 
playbook as a scholarly contribution of major significance in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from I I former NHL player, who briefly 
indicated the Beneficiary "developed not only his playbook at these organizations, but was a successful 
head coach." The letter does not further elaborate and explain the significance of the playbook in the 
overall hockey field. Rather, the letter discusses the Beneficiary's influence on the teams with whom 
he coached and simply references the development of his playbook. 
Further, the record contains a letter from ....I------~' president of the ....I ----~I Hockey 
League, who stated: 
The ~-----~Te am combined players from the USA, Canada, Slovakia and 
Serbia. This was not any easy task as the players flew in from different countries and 
some did not speak English. However, under the guidance of [the Beneficiary] all 
players ( and family members) had a great experience, learned new skills, systems, and 
all have requested to continue playing with thel !Team and under the 
systems outlined in the [Beneficiary's] playbook. 
4 The screenshot entitled, "About Academia," states that "Academia is a platform for sharing academic research. 
Academics have uploaded 40 million papers, and 31 million academics, professionals, and students read papers on 
Academia every month." 
3 
The youth hockey Playbook that has been prepared by [the Beneficiary] has been 
incorporated with our kids through his camps and in private sessions with coaches. It 
is the gold standard for youth hockey throughout the world. It is our goal to spend time 
during the off season to dig deep into the concepts, techniques, and systems. 
Although the letter praises the Beneficiary's playbook, the letter does not contain specific, detailed 
information showing the impact of the Beneficiary's playbook on the overall field rather than limited 
to the Beneficiary's youth teams and players. In addition, while the letter claims the playbook "is the 
gold standard for youth hockey," the letter does not further elaborate and justify its opinion. The letter, 
for example, does not discuss the applicability of the playbook across the hockey field other than by a 
select few youth hockey teams. 
Here, the letters do not expand upon how the Beneficiary's work has significantly impacted or 
influenced the field in a major way. In the absence of specific information detailing the impact or 
influence of the Petitioner's playbook, the letters do not demonstrate that his work has risen to a level 
of major significance in the field. 
Accordingly, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary meets two additional categories of evidence. 
Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B )( 7), we 
need not address this ground because it cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of at least 
three criteria. 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)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and 
(iii). 5 Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 6 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. 
5 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
6 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). 
4