dismissed O-1A Case: Skydiving

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 2116 9180 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 08, 2022 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a skydiving center, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a skydiving 
instructor, coach, and videographer. To do so, the Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an 
0-1 nonimmigrant of extraordinary ability in athletics. This 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)(l 5)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
contain evidence of the Beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, at least 
three of eight listed categories of documents , or comparable evidence of his eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(C). 
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 
As relevant here, section 101 (a)(l 5)(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 must 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 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 m order to establish the individual's 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 101 (a)(l 5)( o )(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary indicates current employment as a skydiving instructor in Chile since 2019 and 
previous experience competing in the sport inl I since 2016. The Petitioner seeks to employ 
the Beneficiary as a skydiving instructor, coach, and videographer for a period of approximately 43 
months. 2 The Petitioner's Working Agenda for 2021 to 2024 indicates the Beneficiary's duties will 
include coaching its skydiving students in multiple disciplines and competing in several national 
tournaments. 
A. Eligibility Claims 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, it must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)(l)-( 8). Within its initial submission, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary 
met four 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), published material at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), and employment in a critical or essential capacity at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). In response to the Director's request for further evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner requested that the Director consider comparable evidence for one additional criterion, 
judging at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
The Director subsequently denied the petition, determining that the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(l). The record indicates that the Beneficiary placed third in thel I 
category at the 2019 I National Parachuting Championships. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion, and we agree with the Director's findings for 
this criterion. 
1 See alsoMatterofChawathe, 25 I&NDec. 369, 3 76(AAO2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be determinednot 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 Pursuant to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 214.2( o)(6)(iii), an approved petition for a noncitizen classified under section 
101 (a)(l S)(O)(i) of the Act shall be valid for a period of time determined by the Director to be necessary to accomplish 
the event oractivity,not to exceed 3 years. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains the Beneficiary' seligibility for four additional criteria. In addition, 
for the first time the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary meets two further criteria, scholarly 
articles at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6) 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. SeeMatterofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providingthatif"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 
ofObaigbena, 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. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
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 claimed that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon his membership in the 
I I Parachute Association I I and the I I Parachute Federation! I his 
skydiving qualifications, and his selection to participate in a Panam Sports Organization (PSO) High 
Performance Coaches Certificate I training course. 
First, regarding the Beneficiary's memberships, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's 
membership card. In addition, it submitted several letters containing inf ormation relevant to this 
criterion. For instance, a "no objection" letter dated January 2021 from lof thel I 
in satisfaction of the consultation requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(5)(ii)(A), also provides that the 
Beneficiary is a member of the I I An additional letter from I I provided two I I 
websites which he asserts contain "criteria for membership andratings," bu this letter does not mention 
the requirements for membership in the organization, nor did the Petitioner provide screenshots of the 
websites supporting a claim that the requires outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in the Beneficiary's field or an allied one. 
Further, letters from I I andl l representatives of the confirm the 
Beneficiary's membership in that organization and include some of his competitive achievements in 
the sport. A letter from I I of I I the 
Beneficiary's employer, mentions the Beneficiary's "international experience in Championships and 
different skydive associations or federations," but does not specif in which associations or federations 
the Beneficiary has membership. An additional letter from provides that the 
Beneficiary is also a board member of but it does not assert that 
I I requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognizednational 
or international experts, to be appointed to its board. 
3 
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 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international expe1is in the field. Here, although 
the evidence presented confirms the Beneficiary's membership in I I and and board 
membership inl I the Petitioner did not point out which, if any, 
evidence displays the membership requirements and explain how membership in those organizations 
requires outstanding achievements and reflects that judging is comprised of recognized national or 
international experts. 
Next, pertaining to the Beneficiary's skydiving qualifications, the Petitioner provided documentation 
regarding his certifications, ratin s and endorsements, including 201 7 Coach Rating Course 
completion certificate; 2019 Skydiving Association parachutist Instructor D and AFF and 
TA Endorsements; 2021 _ _.License D and coach certifications and AFF 1 and TAN 1 ratings; 
2021 instructor rating certificate; and International Parachutist Certificate for 
Certificate D and Packer B. However, he has not explained how achieving those certifications, ratings, 
and endorsements conveyed membership in an association, as required by the plain language of the 
regulationat8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
Moreover, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary's selection to participate in a PSO High 
Performance Coaches Certificate 1 training course satisfies this criterion. It provided a letter dated 
March 2021 from I I of the Chilean Skydiving Federation and 
member of the Chilean National Olympic Committee, who confirms the Beneficiary's anticipated 
participation in the training course, designed for "coaches, technicians and fitness trainers who work 
in high-performance" who are "chosen by [the] National Olympic Committee of each country." It 
also provided promotional material from PSO showing the training course was scheduled for March 
to November 2021. 3 However, the Petitioner cannot rely on those materials to establish the 
Beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing this petition in April 2021. A petitioner must establish 
that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the 
filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ); see also Matter of Katigbak, 
14I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). Regardless, the Petitioner has not explained how the 
Beneficiary's participation in the training course conveys membership in an association, as required 
by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)(2). 
The documentation submitted further included general skydiving information, such as an excerpt from 
the 20191 I Parachute Federation Industry Standard Training Operations Manual (TOM) 
pertaining to suggested training for I I candidates; the table of contents of the 2021 FAI 
Sporting Code, Section 5 - Skydiving; an article from https://ww.perrisblog.onehat.io entitled "How 
to Become a Skydiving Instructor;" a piece from www.skydivecarolina.com entitled "How Much 
Experience Do Tandem Skydive Instructors Have;" and an item from www.skydivecarolina.com 
3 The Petitioner also submitted screenshots from www.panamsports.org for a July 2020 course entitled "Sports Psychology 
for High Performance Coaches,"taughtbysports psychologist Jose Maria Buceta, but the record does not indicate whether 
the Beneficiary attended this course. 
4 
entitled "What Can I Do With Each Skydiving License," listing the four skydiving licenses, A,B,C,D, 
and the minimum number of skydives required for each, being 25, 50, 200, and 500, respectively. 
However, this evidence does not demonstrate the membership requirements of any associations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner rovides letters from sk instructor with The 
Parachute School of skydiving instructo with ______ 
c=:lsk dive sk · · il additional letters from 
of and and 
additional materials from the websites of the _ and 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. 
Finally, with respectto the Beneficiary's third-place finish at the 201 q INationalParachuting 
Championships, the Petitioner emphasizes that in her letters, thel I stated the 
Beneficiary's results were scored "by six -rated judges." However, the Petitioner has not 
explained how the Beneficiary achieving third place in a national skydiving championship conveyed 
membership in an association, as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). The Petitioner submitted the same evidence in supp01i of the awards 
criterion, which was appropriate given the nature of the I I National Parachuting 
Championships as a competition in the Beneficiary's field rather than an association in his field. 
For the reasons outlined above, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted documentation 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about 
the alien. relating to the alien's work in the jield for which classification is sought, 
which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The Director determined that the record does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted sufficient 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 4 
The Petitioner submitted articles dated between 2016 to 2021 pertaining to the Beneficiary from the 
print editions of the magazines! I Skydiver Magazine and Parachutist. We find that the 
appearance oftheBeneficiary'snameandphotographin the 2019issueofl Skydiver Magazine 
does not rise to the level of an article about the Beneficiary. The magazine reported the individual and 
team results at the 2019 !National Parachuting Championships. While the article supports the 
4 The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion, in part, because the articles submitted did not 
"identify the beneficiary as a person who has risen to the verytopofthefield of skydiving." However, this consideration 
does not relate to whether the Petitioner has met theplainlanguage of this criterion. If the Petitioner had satisfied at least 
three criteria, which it did not, then we would have analyzed the published materials as part ofthe totality of the evidence 
to determine if the Beneficiary's successes are sufficient to establish that he has extraordinary ability in the field of 
endeavor. Although we need not conduct such an analysis in this case, we briefly note that we do not find the record 
(including the evidence under this criterion) to be indicative of the sustained acclaim and recognition for achievements 
required for this highly restrictive classification. 
5 
Petitioner's claim of the Beneficiary's bronze medal at this national event, the Beneficiary was not 
identified by name in a caption to the photograph, and the photograph appears to be one of many 
photographs of the competition's individual and team winners. In addition, we note that while the 
Beneficiary's receipt of tandem coach, AFF, and tandem-instructor ratings, and A, C, and D licenses 
have been reported in the above-referenced magazines, mere mentions of the Beneficiary's name in a 
list of rating, licensing, or tournament results cannot be considered articles about the Beneficiary. 
Articles that are not about a noncitizen do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. Cf Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 
2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at* 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008)(upholding a finding that articles regarding a 
show are not about the actor). 
The Petitioner also provided a screenshot dated September 2020 from the Facebook page of The 
Rating Center with a photograph of the Beneficiary atl I his employer,and 
the caption "Congratulations to United States Parachute Association 
Instructor [the Beneficiary]!" Another screenshot from the Face book page of the 
Parachute Federation dated 2016 contains the Beneficiary's name and a photograph of him at 
I I The Petitioner, however, did not provide supporting evidence indicating that those 
Face book pages or the print editions ofl I Skydiver Magazine or Parachutist qualify as major 
trade publications or major media. Although the Petitioner submitted an email from the editor-
publisher ofl Skydiver Magazine, _____ stating that the final print edition of 
the magazine in 2020 had an average circulation of 3000, the record does not contain evidence 
showing the circulation ofl Skydiver Magazine relative to otherl I media or trade 
magazines, to demonstrate the publication constitutes a major trade publication or major medium. In 
addition, we note that none of the above-mentioned articles identify the author. 
Moreover, the Petitioner submitted a You Tube screenshot of a video posted by I an 
organization that provides skydiving experiences to cancer patients and survivors. The video reflected 
a two-minute interview of the Beneficiary in 2020. Although the Petitioner provided a transcription 
of the video, it did not demonstrate published material about the Beneficiary relating to his work. 
Rather, transcription indicates that the Beneficiary was interviewed about skydive landings. The 
Petitioner also did not establish the You Tube channel represents a major medium. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 4). 
The Petitioner did not initially claim eligibility for this criterion. Within its response to the Director's 
RFE, the Petitioner argued that we should consider comparable evidence for this criterion. As 
mentioned above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) provides that "[i]f 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." 5 Thus, a petitioner 
5 Petitioners should submit evidence outlined in the evidentia1y criteria if the criteria readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation. However, if the petitioner establishes that a particular criterion is not readily applicable to the beneficiary's 
6 
must demonstrate why the regulatory criterion does not pertain to a beneficiary's occupation and how 
the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii). 
Within its RFE response, the Petitioner contended that the Beneficiary worked as a judge "with other 
world-renowned skydiving judges" in October 2016 when he "was invited to judge other skydiving 
athletes, alongside! and at the State 
Skydiving Championships." The Petitioner submitted an email dated October 2016 that appears to be 
from I I addressed to the Beneficiary and others, referencing "the upcoming 
Championships" and "accommodation for the five of us ... for the Saturday night (12th November)," 
and stating as follows: 
.... I believe registrations have been received for for 4 way, CF (not sure whether 2 or 4 way) 
and accuracy. Will confirm the events during the week before the event. 
We'll be using In Time so can you please bring a Windows based computer .... 
Look forward to seeing you at 
The Petitioner also provided several pages from the 2008 I I Parachute FederationD 
Judges' Handbook, screenshots from the websitewww.fai.org, and a screenshot that it claims is from 
the website I asserting that these materials show the judging criteria, and thatD 
I and I are skydiving judges who are "exceptional in their fields." 
As noted by the Director, in order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary 
has not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that he actually participated in the 
judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. Here, the Petitioner has not 
presented corroborating documentation showing that the Beneficiary actually participated in judging 
skydiving athletes, and the events at which the Beneficiary judged, to show that he actually 
participated as a judge for the 2016 State Skydiving Championships, as claimed. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not asserted or established that Skydive coaches or instructors are unable 
to participate on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied 
field. The fact that the Beneficiary did not participate in judging is not evidence that the criterion does 
not apply to his occupation. Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the statements in the letter 
of support froml I or the screenshots of judging criteria are equivalent to 
participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied 
field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that this criterion does not apply to the 
Beneficiary's occupation, nor has it shown that the documentation submitted reflects the same caliber 
of experience as participating on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the 
Beneficiary's field. 
occupation, the petitioner may then use the comparable evidence provision to submit additional evidence that is not 
specifically described in that criterion but is comparable to that criterion. See 2 USCIS Policy Manual M.4(C), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally 
recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(A). Further, although the Petitioner 
established that the Beneficiary met the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)( 1), it did not 
establish that he meets the criteria relating to memberships in associations, published materials, and 
judging. Although the Petitioner maintains the Beneficiary's eligibility for an additional criterion on 
appeal, relating to having been employed in a critical or essential capacity for distinguished 
organizations and establishments at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 7), we need not reach this additional 
ground. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B), we reserve this issue. 6 Consequently, the Petitioner has not established 
the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. 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. 
6 SeeINSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26(1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessa1y to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
(declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
8