dismissed O-1A Case: Soccer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-S-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 23,2018 
APPEAL Of CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITI,ON: fORM I-129, PETITION fOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a soccer association, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a head coach. 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 101(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner did not satisfy, as required, the alternative 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 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 01 (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 lield 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 
fullowing 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 field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
.
Maner 4P-S-A-
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 ofthe individual's achievements in 
the field through evidence of a major, intemationally 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 
suflicient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the eight categories of evidence listed at 8 
C.F.R. * 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(l3)(1)-(8). lfthe 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)'ing the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself 
establish eligibility tor 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 extraordinary ability in the athletics under 
section IOI(a)(IS)(o)(i) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii).' 
II. ANALYSIS 
Absent evidence of a major, internationally recognized award, the Petitioner seeks to demonstrate 
the Beneficiary's sustained acclaim and recognition of achievements through evidence 
corresponding to the eight regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The Director 
determined that the Beneficiary satisfied only one criterion - employment in a critical or essential 
capacity at 8 C.F.R ~ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). · The Petitioner maintains that the documentation 
satisfies four additional criteria. As discussed below, we tind that the evidence does not meet at least 
three criteria, as required. 
Doc:umellfation r?f the a/ien·s membership in assocwtwns in the field for which 
class(/ication is sought. which require oulstanding achievements of !heir member s. as 
juc(ged by recogniz ed national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
The Petitioner contends that the Bendiciary's from the 
meets this criterion. Although the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's 
. card, the record does not demonstrate that outstanding achievemen ts are 
required for membership with the , as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
For instance, tlie Petitioner provided screenshot s from regarding 
eligibility requirements. Specifically, "[t]he course is open to all applicants who have 
1 See also Maller ofChawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 I 0), in which we held that. "truth is to be detennined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
.
Mauer of P-S-A-
held a licens e for a minimum of 6-months and who are at least 16 yea rs of 
age." Thus, membership is not limited to individual s who have previously demonstrated outstanding 
achievements; rather licen sing is obtained to all individuals who meet minimum license expe rience 
and age requir ements. Furthe r, the screenshots do not reflect that receiving a 
is judged by recognized national or international experts. 
In addition, the Petitioner arg ues that it provided articles demon strating "the arduous selection 
process demanded by regardless of the level of member ship soug ht by the soccer ·coach." In 
particular, the Petitioner refere nces screenshots from socc eram erica.com and si.com. The articles 
reflect that revised its licensing requirements in 2015 by requi'ring coaches to take cour ses for 
each level of coaching. Again, the Petitioner has not shown that passing coaching classes rises to the 
level of out stand ing achi evemen ts, as judged by recognized national or internation al experts, 
consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). For these reason s, the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Bencriciary mee ts this criteri on. 
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 q{specialization to thatfor which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
The record contains a letter from director of coaching for the 
who describe d the Beneficiary's participation as a j udge of other coaches at 
Accordingly, the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien ·s original scienl{fzc. scholarly. or business-related contributions 
ofmajorsign~ficance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
The Petitioner contends that the Benefici ary's author ship of socce r trainin g manuals is an original 
contribution of major significance in the field of coaching. The regul ation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5) requires "scientific , scholarly , or busine ss-related contributions." Here, the 
. Petitioner has not demonstrated how socce r training manuals are considered to be scientific, 
scholarly, or business-related contributions. Rather, as indicat ed by the Petitioner, the manuals are 
in the field of athletic coa ching. 
Notwithstanding the abov e, the Petition er references a letter from , se nior director of 
yout h devel opmen t at and the previou sly discussed letter from 
indicated that "has consistentl y utilized [the Beneficiary's] manual and [has] 
2 The Director noted that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's judging experience is reflective of 
sustained national or international acclaim. However, this consideration does not relate to whether the Petitioner has met 
the plain language of this criterion. If the Beneficiary had satisfied at least three criteria, which he did not, then we 
would have analyzed his judging experience as part of the totality of the evidence to determ ine if his 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 brieny 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. 
3 
.
A4al!er of'P-S-A-
achieved trem endous success in the growth and deve lopm ent [of] our you ng soccer players." 
Simil arly, stat ed that ;'the manuals, curri culums and prese ntations were origi nal mate rials 
crea ted by [the Beneficiar y] and were used by to prop el our player s and coac hes to the next 
leve l." In order to satisfy the regulation at 2 14.2(o )(3)( iii)(B)(5), a petitioner must establ ish that not 
only has the Beneficiary made origin al contribution s but that they have been of majo r significance in 
the field. For exa mple , a petitioner may support the record with ev idenc e that a b ene ficiary's 
contributions have been widely implem ented, have remarkably impacted or influenced th e fi eld, or 
have otherwi se rise n to a level of major significance in the field . Here, whi le the lette rs claim the 
manuals influence to . they do not estab lish their significan ce to the greate r field of socce r and 
coaching. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that the Ben eficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that !he alien has been employed in a crilical or essential capaci!y for 
organizalions and establishmenls that have a distinguished repulmion. 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
The Director determined that the Petitio ner demon strated the Beneficiary 's eligibility for this 
criterion. The recor d cont ains evidence of the Beneficiary's coach ing at seve ral prestigi ous soccer 
teams and club s. As such , we agree with the Dire ctor' s finding , a nd the Petitioner estab lished that 
the Beneficiary satisfies thi s criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high sa/my or will command a high 
salwy or other remuneralion .fiH· services. evidenced by contrac!s or other reliable 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3 )(iii)(B)(8). 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary " will receiv e a high remuneration of S45,000 per yea r in 
addi tion to any commi ss ion income." Further, the Petition er cla ims that its s ponsor agreement 
" indicat ed the [BJcnefi ciary 's base salary , not total salary." Finally, the Petiti one r asserts that ;;[i)t is 
vvell known in the soccer coaching indu stry that coaches recei ve lucrative comm iss ion income" and 
that the evid ence of comp arable salari es from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Sta tistics and the U.S. 
Department of Labor includ ed base salary and addition al commi ssion income. 
While the agreement reflect s that the Petitioner will pay the Bene ficiary $45,000 per year, it also 
states that the Beneficiary " will be entitled to addition al comp ensat ion for services rendered under 
this Agreement in the form of com mis sion income of the followin g basis:." However, the agree ment 
does not describe or list what will con sist of the commiss ion income. Instead, the agreemen t appears 
to be missing the additi ona l com missio n income infonnation afte r the ":" and continu es on with 
other parts of the contract, suc h as expen ses, work location, empl oyee benefi ts, and etc. M oreov er, 
the Petitioner does not support his claims regarding his assertion that it is well known in the soccer 
industry that coaches rece ive lucrative commission income . Regardles s, the agreemen t does not 
specify or identify how much co mmi ssion income will be avail able to the Bene ficiary. Furthermore , 
although it submitted screenshots from bls.gov and careero nestop.org reg arding coach es and sco uts, 
there is no menti on regardin g the inclusi on of commi ss ion incom e, as asserte d by the Petiti oner. 
4 
Maller ofP-S-A-
Notwithstanding the above, the screenshots relate to the general area of "coaches and scouts" rather 
than to the Be11eficiary's field of soccer coaches. Moreover, while the bls.gov screenshot reflects 
that the wage is $31,460 per year, this wage retlects the median pay rather than the high salaries of 
soccer coaches. Furthermore, the careeronestop.org screenshot shows that the 2016 median wage is 
$26,550 and the high wage is $76,860. Thus, when compared to the Beneficiary's proposed salary 
of $45,000, his wages are substantially lower than the high wages of general coaches and scouts. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary will command a high salary 
or other remuneration for services. 
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). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for 
the 0-1 visa classification as a foreign national with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Marter ofP-S-A-, JD# 1274692 (AAO Apr. 23, 2018)