dismissed O-1A Case: Soccer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF FCS-C-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of tht· 
Administratiw Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV.28.2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a youth soccer club, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i). 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 tield through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Vermont 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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence of record meets five criteria. Upon de 170\'0 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here. section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) ofthe Act establishes 0-1 classification f()r 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 \vho seeks to enter the United States to continue \vork 
in the area of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations include the 
following definition: "E'itraordinary ahilily in the field of' science. education. husiness. or athletics 
means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to 
the very top ofthe field of endeavor.'' 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth the evidentiary criteria tor establishing a bene1iciar:(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 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 
.
Matter of FC"J-C-
8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)(l )-( 8). If the petitioner demonstrates that the criteria in paragraph 
(o)(3)(iii) ofthis 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 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 ). In 
Matter o{Chawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0), we held that. '"truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality:· That decision explains that. pursuant to the 
preponderance of the evidence standard, we "must examine each piece of evidence f()r relevance. 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true:· !d. Accordingly. where a 
petitioner provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria. we will determine 
whether the totality of the record shows eligibility under section IOI(a)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l )(ii). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Introduction 
The Petitioner tiled the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. and supporting 
documentation, seeking employment for the Beneficiary as a youth soccer coach for a period of three 
years. The Beneficiary's background includes experience as a professional soccer player in Russia. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the evidentiary criteria described at 
8 C.F.R § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the exhibits satisfy five of those 
criteria and that it also submitted comparable evidence of the Beneficiary"s eligibility under 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). The Petitioner contends that evidence relating to the Bencficim-y"s career 
accomplishments playing soccer should be considered in determining his extraordinary ability. 
However, as discussed below, we have reviewed the evidence relating to the Bencticiary"s 
achievements as both an athlete and a coach. and we 1ind that the exhibits do not satisfy any of the 
evidentiary categories described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) or the comparable evidence provision 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien ·s receipt (?f nationally or international~v recognized prizes 
or awardsj(Jr excellence in thefield ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(/). 
The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon his former teams' 
championship results. Specifically, it references place in the 
Championship of the zone· tournament in 2007: and 
place win in 2008 and place win in 2009 in the zone 
tournament. The Petitioner explains that the is a member of the 
2 
.
Matter oj'FC.'\-C-
including 58 soccer clubs from 41 provinces of 
of photographs of the medals. 
members and it provides copies 
First, although not addressed by the Director, we note that all evidence in a foreign language must be 
accompanied by a full English language translation. S'ee 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(3). The translator must 
certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate. and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. /d. llere. the Petitioner provided 
photographs of medals, however, it did not submit a properly certified English language translation 
of the text inscribed on them. Thus, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the evidence ts 
supportive ofthe Petitioner's claims. 
The Petitioner contends that the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.5(o)(3)(iii) includes team awards. While an individual integral to his group's winning of 
awards may be considered as a recipient, the Petitioner must also demonstrate that such awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the tield. Here, as explained below. 
the Petitioner has not done so. 
The Petitioner assetis that the Beneficiary's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
is supported by testimony from ''several of the most renown[ ed] experts in the field of soccer." 
While the Petitioner does not identify the specific letters to which it refers. \Ve note. for example. 
that and all professional soccer players. state 
that the Beneficiary won the ' with in 2009. Upon review. 
the letters do not establish the significance or scope of this tournament or the national or 
international recognition carried by its awards. The burden is on the Petitioner to demonstrate the 
level achievement associated with the Beneficiary's awards. and to document that the distinction 
enjoys recognition beyond the organizing entity. The Petitioner has not provided suflicient 
information about the competitions at which the Beneficiary received the stated medals. or provided 
adequate evidence showing that these awards enjoy national or international recognition. 
In summary, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary has received nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Accordingly, we concur with the 
Director's conclusion that the Petitioner hasnot submitted evidence that meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for 1vhich 
class(fication is sought. which require outstanding achievements oft heir members. as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or field,·. 
8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
In the initial submission, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary satisfied this criterion based 
upon his membership in "several highly respected professional soccer clubs including 
and The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion and we agree with that determination. 
.
Matter qf FCc;;-C-
In order to demonstrate that membership in an associatiOn meets this criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)( iii )(B )(2), a petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding 
achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. The overall prestige of a given 
association is not determinative; the issue is membership requirements rather than the association· s 
overall reputation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner avers that the Beneficiary meets this criterion because "'[he] was a member 
of major national soccer teams. which won nationally recognized championships."' The record does 
not include. however, sufticient evidence confirming the Bencticimfs tenure or membership with 
the teams noted. The Petitioner did not provide the dates that the Beneficiary played on the teams. 
or an official roster or other employment documentation confirming his position as a member. The 
record does include promotional literature for a team from 2010: however. it is not translated as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), and therefore has diminished probative value. The Petitioner 
also provides letters from the Beneficiary"s coach and colleagues describing his career 
accomplishments. For example, the record includes a letter tl·om head coach of 
confirming that the Beneficiary played for "the second team of club 
in 2000." He also describes how the Beneficiary was moved to the first team Dynamo 
from 2001 to 2003. goes on to explain that the Beneficiary subsequently played for 
other soccer clubs including 
and Similarly, a professional soccer player. also 
provided a letter discussing the Beneficiary's play on "'famous clubs all over the country." These 
letters, however, do not offer sufficient information about the specific team/s of which the 
Beneficiary was a member or the dates of his membership. 
In addition to the lack of detatiled evidence confirming the Beneficiary's membership, the above­
rerefenced letters do not provide sutlicient information regarding the qualifications required to 
become part of the any of the teams described. Furthermore. the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the Beneficiary was selected for membership by experts in the field. 
The Petitioner notes on appeal that, while an athletic team is not strictly speaking an ""association:· 
an athlete or coach can earn a place on a national or an only through rigorous 
competition which separates the very best from the great majority of participants in a given spm1. 
Therefore, an athlete's or coach's membership on an or a major national team such as 
a team may serve to meet this criterion. as such teams are limited in the number of 
members and have a rigorous selection process. 1 However. it is the Petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets every element of a given criterion, including that he is a 
member or coach of a team that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. Here, as discussed. the Petitioner has not offered 
sufficient evidence or information confirming that membership on the teams noted requires 
1 
We note that the evidence submitted is not sufficient to support the Petitioner"s claim that the Beneficiary has played on 
or coached a such as one selected to represent a country in the sporfs or 
or at the 
4 
.
Matter of FCS-C-
outstanding achievement of its members, despite its contention that the teams were ' · teams 
or that they won nationally recognized championships. Also. it did not submit sufficient evidence 
establising that the Beneficiary was chosen for memberhip on any of the teams by recognized 
national or international experts. Thus. the Petitioner has not established 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 field for which classificathm is sought, 
which shall include the title. date. and author ol such published material. and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J). 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not submit sutticient evidence to meet this criterion. 
Specifically, he noted that the published material presented dealt primarily with the Bene1iciary's work 
as a soccer player not as a soccer coach. On appeal. the Petitioner maintains that published material 
about the Beneficiary's work as a soccer player is relevant. While \Ve consider the Petitioner·s 
submissions below, we find they do not meet 
the plain language of this criterion. 
First, several of the articles provided are not published in major media. The Petitioner offers exceq1ts 
from "major online platforms dedicated to the sport of soccer"' including 
and the site of the The Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence that these internet websitcs constitute tm~jor media. For example. the 
Petitioner provided an excerpt from the website showing that the website 
has a total of million "'visits . ., and ranks in Russia. However. the 
Petitioner did not otler comparative publishing or internet "visiC statistics establishing that 
million views is commensurate with major media, nor did it explain the criteria used for ranking 
websites or how a ranking of in Russia otherwise renders the website major media. In 
addition, most of these articles only briefly mention the Beneficiary or list him as one member of a 
team, thus, they are not about him as required. For example. the Petitioner ofJered an exceq1t from an 
article entitled ' " published on the website a website of 
the In the article, discusses his creation of a youth soccer 
program in Russia. He mentions that he recruited the Beneficiary to join his team: hmvevcr. 
the article is not about the Beneficiary. Rather, it is about fonnation of a nev.. youth 
soccer league. 
Two additional articles, " 'published on the website 
and a press release on the website entitled, · 
' list the Beneficiary as one of members 
of a soccer team. However, the regulation requires that the published material be "'about the alien·· and 
"relating to the alien's work in the field:' It is insufficient that the Beneficiary be mentioned within 
published material appearing in one ofthe required publication types. Rather. the published piece itself 
must be about the person and relating to his or her work in the field for which classification is sought. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J). 
.
Matter (~f FCS-C-
Finally, on appeal, the Petitioner maintains that internet searches for the Beneficiary"s name yield 
several thousand results, and ' results when queried in Russian:· It provides a copy of a 
Google search page indicating that the Beneficiary's name renders search results. Search engine 
results, however, are not "published material, .. but instead locate and index online material. As such. 
they do not meet this criterion. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that material about the Beneficiary and relating 
to his work has been published in professional or major trade publications or maJor media. 
Accordingly, it has not met this criterion. 
Evidence q{the alien ·s original scientific. scholarly. or business-related contrihutions 
olmajor sign?ficance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
In support of this criterion. the Petitioner submitted recommendation letters. It states that. because 
the plain language of the criterion mentions only "scientific. scholarly. [and 1 business-related 
contributions," the letters should be "given appropriate \VeighC as comparable evidence. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) provides that comparable evidence ··may .. be submitted ifthe 
criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. It is a 
petitioner's the burden to articulate why a criterion docs not readily apply and how the evidence 
submitted is "comparable."' 
Here, the Petitioner provided multiple letters of reference from the Beneficiary's colleagues and 
coaches. For instance, the letter from states that the Beneficiary '·is recognized as 
one of the best players not only in Russia, but also abroad.'' Similarly, states that the 
Beneficiary has "excellent physical preparation'' and "unmatched technique ... He describes how the 
Beneficiary ''played almost all of the games of the season'· and was the ··tirst to adopt a more 
aggressive 3-5-2 formation." He then states that the Beneficiary's leadership at "led in 
many ways to the team's victory in the tournament in the zone~" 
While the Beneficiary has earned the admiration of his references, the letters do not demonstrate that 
his successes constitute significant athletic contributions comparable to the plain language of this 
criterion. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the his influence on other soccer 
players or teams in the field, nor does it show that the field has changed as a result of his work. As 
such, the Petitioner has not show that it meets this criterion or that it has satisfied the comparable 
evidence provision. 
Evidence that the alien has heen employed in a critical or essential 
organizations and establishments that have a dislinRuished 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
capacit)· j(Jr 
reputalion. 
The scope of this evidentiary criterion focuses on the relative importance of the Beneficiary's 
position within the scope ofthe organizations that have employed him. The Petitioner maintains that 
the Beneficiary was employed in a critical or essential capacity as a player for soccer 
teams, and 
.
Matter of FC~-C-
The record does not establish, however, that the Beneficiary has been employed in a critical or 
essential capacity for these organizations. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient details regarding 
when the Beneficiary joined these organizations, his specific role, or how his contributions as a player 
on either team were critical or essential to the soccer clubs. Futthermore. it did not submit 
documentation showing where the Beneficiary's position fell within the organizations· general 
hierarchy, such as evidence of how it related to other players in the organizations and the number of 
players employed. Additionally, while the Petitioner contends on appeal that the noted teams· 
accomplishments can be attributed to the Beneficiary, it has not provided adequate material explaining 
his importance to these organizations. Without more, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary played a 
critical or essential role. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not provide suflicient evidence establishing that either or 
enjoy a distinguished reputation. As we noted earlier. statements by the Petitioner and 
testimonial evidence provided in letters of support that these teams are "national'" teams or that they 
won "nationally recognized championships,'' is insufficient, without supporting evidence. to 
establish that they are organizations with a distinguished reputation. As a result. the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient material to meet this criterion. 
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). and the exhibits do not satisfy at least 
three of the evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 2 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible f(x the 0-1 visa 
classification as a foreign national with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller ojFCS-C-, ID# 651150 (AAO Nov. 28, 201 7) 
2 As the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has extraordinary ability. we need not determine whether he 
seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. S'ee section IOI(a)( 15)(0J(i) of the 
Act.