dismissed O-1A Case: Jiu Jitsu

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-J-J-E- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR.I3,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a jiu jitsu academy, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an athletic 
competitor and an instructor. To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, 
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. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section I O!(a)(IS)(O)(i), 
8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(IS)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California 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). The Director subsequently aftirmed the petition's denial twice on 
motion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides copies of previously submitted documents and a letter asserting 
that the Beneficiary meets the regulatory requirements for 0-1 classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section I 0 I (a)(IS)(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 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 of the tield of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth the initial 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 
.
Mauer of R-.1-.1-E-LLC 
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 
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)( 1 )-(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 satisf)ring 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 satis(ving the initial evidentiary criteria, we will detennine whether the· 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows extraordinary ability in athletics under 
section I Ol(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
Absent evidence of a major, internationally recognized award, we address whether the Petitioner 
offered documentation to· establish that the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the six evidentiary 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J)-(8)? The Director found the Beneficiary had 
met only the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J). On appeal, the 
Petitioner claims the Beneficiary meets two additional criteria. We assess all three criteria below 
and conclude the Beneficiary has not satistied any of them. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or award<> for excellence in the .field o,/ endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 1). 
The Petitioner provided a list of the Beneficiary's championship results and letters from the 
mentioning· several 
of his awards. In addition to photographs of the Beneficiary's various medals, the record includes 
pictures of him celebrating after his matches, standing on award podiums wearing his medals , and 
holding his medals or trophies at various competitions. 
The Petitioner also offered competition results indicating that the Beneficiary won first place in the 
"brown" belt adult male feather weight category at the 2015) 
and in the "brown" belt adult male light weight and open class categories at the 
2015) 3 In response to the Director's request for evidence, .the 
1 
See also Matter ofChawathe. 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 The Petitioner does not claim a major, irrremationally recognized award to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility under 
the single evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). · 
3 These results show that numerous awards were presented in various categories of white. grey, yellow, orange/green, 
2 
.
Ma!ter.of R-J-J-£- LLC 
Petitioner offered results from the 
20 16) showin g that the Benefi ciary placed third in the "black" belt adult male middl e weight and 
ope n class categories. 4 The Beneficiary won these two awards at the black belt leve l after the 
petition was filed. Eligibility , however , must be established at the time o f filing . See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l) , (12). 
The record includes online articles and blog posrings discussing some o fthe Beneficiary's matches, 
but the Petit ioner has not demon strated that this documentation shows that the Beneficiary's specific 
awards, named above, are nation ally or internationally recogni zed. 5 With out suffic ient evidence 
showing that the Beneficiar y's awa rds f rom the aforementioned competitions are nationally or 
intemationally recognized prizes or awards for exc ellence in the field , the Petitioner has not estab lished 
lhat he meets this criterion . 
Documentation of Jhe alien's members hip in assocwJwns in the field .for which 
cfass(fication is sough/, which require outstanding achievem ents of their members, as 
judged hy recognized national or internalional experts in their disc;p/ines or .fields . 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
The Petitioner presented the Benefici ary's membership card for the 
and a letter from the identifying him as black belt recipient.
0 
The 
Director noted that belt rank promotions are based on meeting standardized criteri a set forth in 
" profi cie ncy examinations." 7 The record does not contain sufficient eviden ce show ing that 
or their black belt designations req uire o utstand ing achie vements of their members, as judged 
by reco gni zed nation al or intern ational experts in their disciplines or fields . 
On appea l, the Peti tioner state s: "'We agree that mere membership in th e does not in itse lf 
represent an ' outstanding achi eve ment. ' Howeve r, validation to the displays 
evi dence of membership requiring outs tandin g abil ity. USClS has also previously accepted 
membership in other cases as evidence of membership requiring outstanding achie vement. " The 
Petitioner , howev er, does not iden tify the specifi c cases in which membership was found to 
meet this criterion. Regardles s, each case is decided on its own merits based on the record of 
proc eed ing before us. We are not bound by a decision of a service center or distric t director. See 
La. Philharmonic Orche,\·tra v. iNS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (~.D. La. 2000). 
Whil e the Pet itioner asserts that regulations ho ld that only the top perfo rming black belts are 
blue, purple. brown, and black bell levels. 
4 The record reflects the Beneficiary was promoted to black belt in 2016. 
5 \Ve will furt;,er address these articles and blogs under the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
* 214.2(o)(J)( iii)(B)(J) . 
6 This letter notes that "approximately 15,500 Black Belts" are registered throughout different countries. ln addition, the 
aforementioned results from the Beneficiary's competi rions show. that there are at least fi\'e progress ive levels of black 
belt "masters." 
7 An article in notes that the Beneficiary "was promoted to black belt by his long time coach, 
3 
.
Matter of R-J-.J-E- LLC 
qualified to compete in the ' the "Final Results" from the 
20 15" indicate that athletes of various belt levels and skills participated in this 
competition. For instance, the 2015 competition included "Juvenile" levels 1 
and 2 white belts and blue belts, purple belts, bro\\'11 belts, and black belts. The record therefore 
does not support the Petitioner's claim that only "elite" members qualify to compete in the 
or that participation in this competition requires outstanding achievements. 
Regardless, the Beneficiary's participation and first place award in the "brown" belt adult male 
feather weight category at the in 2015 have already been addressed 
under the preceding criterion. The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's qualification for 
the and his black belt registration with the constitute memberships 
. in associations that require outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
Published material in professional or nu~jor trade publications or major media about 
the alien, rela!ing to the alien's !Fork in the field for which class~fication is sought, 
which shall include lhe tille. date. and aurhor of such published material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The Director found that that the Petitioner had demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility under this 
. criterion. For the reasons outlined below, we fmd that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
documentary evidence showing that he meets the plain language of this criterion. Accordingly, the 
Director's determination-on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner offered various articles about the Beneficiary in and 
but their author was not identified as required by the regulatory criterion. In addition, the 
record includes several articles about the Beneficiary appearing in the 
blog. The Petitioner also submitted an article ·about him posted at "blogspot" and a 
promotional piece about one of his upcoming matches appearing in The evidence, 
however, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the aforementioned online magazines and blogs are 
professional or. major trade publications or major media. 
As documentation of and status as major media, the Petitioner 
provided web traffic overviews from retlecting total visits in the last six months of 
115,000, 6,000, and 3,300 ,000, respectively. The record also includes data from 
indicating that had estimated monthly visits ranging from 115,000 
to 155,000 from December 2015 to December 2016. While the Petitioner has provided information 
regarding and online traffic , the record does not demonstrate that these tigures 
are a reliable indicator of the readership of blog and 
"blogspot." We note that the record does not establish whether these blogs are produced by the 
publications as opposed to being open-source sites through which anyone can post a blog entry. 
Regardless, and web traffic data do not establish that the 
aforementioned magazines' readership numbers elevate them to major media relative to other online 
4 
Mauer of R-J-.1-E- LLC 
publications. Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary meets 
this regulatory criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not satisfy at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). Even if these initial evidentiary requirements had been met, the cumulative 
record does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). Nor does the evidence show a level of 
expertise indicating that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is 
eligible for the 0-1 visa classillcation as an individual with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Malter ofR-J-.1-E- LLC, !D# 1061114 (AAO Mar. 13, 2018) 
5