dismissed O-1A Case: Soccer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 25, 2025 In Re: 37199313 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a youth soccer club, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a goalkeeper program director 
of extraordinary ability. This 0-1 nonimmigrant visa classification is available to individuals with 
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)(l5)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition because: 1) the Petitioner did not 
meet the consultation requirement, and 2) the Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary satisfied at least 
three of eight possible forms of documentation. 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). If the petitioner demonstrates a criterion 
does not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable evidence to establish 
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 10l(a)(l5)(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)(])-(8). The Director determined the 
Beneficiary fulfilled only one (critical or essential capacity under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(7)) of 
the six claimed categories. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains the Beneficiary meets five additional 
criteria. 2 
At the outset, the Petitioner submits new evidence and makes new claims on appeal. Because the 
Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence and make 
these claims, we will not consider them for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(ll) 
(requiring all requested evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 
764, 766 (BIA 1988) ( declining to consider new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner 
was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the 
record before the denial"). Generally, appellate bodies will not decide issues in the first instance or 
consider claims raised for the first time in an appeal. Nat'l Rifle Ass 'n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 
195 n. 5 (May 30, 2024). 
A. Awards 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(]) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." 
USCIS determines whether the award is a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
which the beneficiary received for excellence in the field of endeavor. 3 This criterion does not require 
an award or prize to have the same level of recognition and prestige associated with the Nobel Prize 
or another award that would qualify as a one-time achievement, nor does it require an award or prize 
to be received at an advanced stage of the beneficiary's career. 4 
1 See also generally 2 users Policy Manual, M.4(C)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanaul. 
2 Any ground of eligibility that is not raised on appeal is waived. See Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 T&N Dec. 330. 336 n.5 (BIA 
2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
3 See generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
4 Id. 
2 
At initial filing, the Petitioner's cover letter did not specifically claim the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
this criterion. However, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from globo.com reporting that "the 
Brazilian women's team won thel IArgentina." In 
addition, the Petitioner offered a photograph purportedly of the Beneficiary holding a trophy. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated: 
The picture in which the beneficiary is holding a trophy is for the tournament his team 
won. The tournament [the Beneficiary's] team competed in was the 2018 I I 
I Officially the is an international women's associa tion football competition held every two 
years for South American under-1 7 women teams and serves as a qualification 
tournament for the FIFA U-17 Woman's World Cup. 
The teams that advance to the final stage are selected in two stages. In the first stage, 
the teams are ranked according to points (3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 0 points 
for a loss) if tied on points, tiebreakers are applied in a certain order ( see enclosed 
Wikipedia listing criteria). The top two teams of each group advance to the final stage. 
In the final stage, the teams are ranked according to points (3 points for a win, 1 point 
for a draw, 0 points for a loss). If tied on points, tiebreakers are applied in a certain 
order (see enclosed Wikipedia listing criteria) considering only matches in the final 
stage. 
This award was awarded to [the Beneficiary's] team for excellence in the field due to 
his extraordinary coaching ability. 
As indicated above, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from Wikipedia regarding the 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the
I I qualifies as a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the 
field. 5 Although the screenshots from globo.com announce the team's victory and the screenshots 
from Wikipedia reflect background material about the tournament, including stage scoring, squad 
requirements, venues, and draws, the Petitioner did not establish how the documentation reflects the 
national or international recognition for excellence in the field of the award. The Petitioner, for 
instance, did not demonstrate the field's view of the ________________
I I as a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. While the evidence 
indicates that the championship serves as a qualification tournament for the FIFA U-17 Woman's 
World Cup, none of the screenshots discuss the significance or relevance of the championship in the 
overall soccer ( football) field. 
5 As indicated above, we will not consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal and not presented before 
the Director. 
3 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
B. Memberships 
The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)(2) requires "[ d]ocumentation ofthe 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." 
users determines if the association for which the person claims present or past membership requires that 
members have outstanding achievements in the field as judged by recognized experts in the field. 6 
The Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion at initial filing. However, the 
Director indicated in the RFE that the Petitioner provided "several coaching licenses including the 
Qualification Program of Football Professionals, B License." In response to the Director's RFE, the 
Petitioner stated that "[t]he beneficiary does not have further information to meet this criterion." 
As indicated above, the Petitioner provided various training and preparation certificates for the 
Beneficiary.7 However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the certificates show the Beneficiary's 
membership in associations, let alone memberships in associations requiring outstanding achievements 
of their members. 8 Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish how receiving various coaching 
certifications equates to being a member in associations, requiring outstanding achievements. Even if the 
Petitioner demonstrated that the certificates reflect membership in associations, the Petitioner did not 
show whether recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements for 
membership. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
e. Published Materials 
The regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) requires "[p]ublished material in professional or 
major trade publications or major media about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for 
which classification is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, 
and any necessary translation." users determines whether the published material was related to the 
person and the person's specific work in the field for which classification is sought. 9 users then 
determines whether the publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade publication, or 
major media publication. 10 
6 See generally 2 users Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
7 As indicated above, we will not consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal and not presented before 
the Director. 
8 See generally 2 users Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) (providing that the petitioner must show that membership in 
the association requires outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts). 
9 See generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
10Id. 
4 
The Petitioner did not specifically claim eligibility for this criterion at initial filing. In the RFE, the 
Director indicated: 
The record contained published articles that talk about the beneficiary as a coach. 
However, while a review of this material would appear to indicate that it relates to the 
beneficiary's work and field of endeavor, the record does not contain sufficient 
independent, objective, evidence demonstrating the significance of the published 
material. Specifically, USCIS could not determine if the published material was 
presented in professional or major media. Therefore, this criterion has not been met. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that "[t]he beneficiary does not have further information to meet this 
criterion." 
As indicated above, the Petitioner initially submitted screenshots of various material, some of which 
do not identify the sources or contain website addresses. 11 Moreover, the majority of the material does 
not contain the title, date, and/or author, as required under this regulatory criterion. Further, some of 
the evidence does not even mention the Beneficiary or simply lists his name in a credit to a 
photograph. 12 Finally, the Petitioner did not present evidence before the Director establishing the 
professional, major trade, or major media nature of the publications. 13 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
D. Original Contributions 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original 
scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." The 
Petitioner argues that it submitted testimonial letters from various athletes discussing the Beneficiary's 
"many specific techniques about soccer and goalkeeping," "different technical and work 
methodology," "unique work methodology," "specific scouting system," and "contributi[ on] to the 
professional growth of many athletes." Although the Petitioner asserts that "[c]oaching methodologies 
and scouting systems that demonstrably enhance the quality of player development and influence the 
structure of national teams meet the threshold for contributions of major significance," the evidence 
refers to the Beneficiary's original athletic contributions in the field. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 5) requires "scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions." Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's athletic-related 
11 As indicated above, we will not consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal and not presented before 
the Director. 
12 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) (indicating that published material that includes only a brief 
citation or passing reference to the beneficiary's work is not "about" the beneficiary, relating to the beneficiary's work in 
the field). 
13 Id. (stating that in evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional publication, major trade publication, or 
major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for professional and major trade publications) and the relative 
circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media)). 
5 
contributions fall into any of the regulatory areas of scientific, scholarly, or business. We consider the 
terms "scientific, scholarly, or business-related" using their ordinary, common meaning. See, e.g., 
Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) ("A fundamental canon of statutory construction is 
that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, 
common meaning .... "). 
Notwithstanding the above, while the testimonial letters praise the Beneficiary for improving their 
own skills and credit the Beneficiary for advancing their athletic development, the Petitioner did not 
show how the Beneficiary's work with individual athletes, as well as with the teams in which he 
participated as a coach, qualify as a contribution of major significance in the field. The Petitioner did 
not demonstrate the impact or influence the Beneficiary's contributions have had in the overall field 
rather than limited to the individuals or teams he has coached. 14 Here, the Petitioner has not shown 
how the Beneficiary's coaching and training have somehow affected the field in a significant, major 
way. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary meets any additional 
criteria discussed above, 
including through the submission of comparable evidence. Although the Petitioner claims the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for a further criterion on appeal, judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)( 4), we need not reach this ground, as well as a review of the Director's favorable 
determination of the critical or essential capacity criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7), because it cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 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). 15 Further, we need not decide whether the Petitioner 
established eligibility for the consultation requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(D), 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(5)(i)(B), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(C). Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 16 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa 
classification as an alien 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. 
14 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual. supra, at M.4(C)(2) (stating that submitted letters should specifically describe 
the beneficiary's contribution and its significance in the field). 
15 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra. at M.4(B). 
16 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24. 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
6