dismissed O-1A Case: Soccer Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21764954 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 30, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a soccer club, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a head professional soccer coach for 
extraordinary ability classification . To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant status, 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)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals 
of extraordinary ability in athletics: either receipt of 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) . 
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)(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) . 
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)(15)(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 that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8) . The Director determined that the 
Beneficiary fulfilled only one criterion, judging at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(B)(iii)( 4). On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary meets two additional criteria. After reviewing all of the 
submitted evidence, the record does not reflect that the Beneficiary meets the requirements of at least 
three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that Beneficiary meets this criterion through the Beneficiary 's 
"coaching in U.S. Youth Futsal organization's National Championships with several I Futsal 
teams." The Petitioner references two letters froml I founder and executive director of 
FustaFutsal, who indicated that the Beneficiary "led the two teams attending the championship as 
Head Coach" and highlighted that Futsal was the first to attend a regional let alone national US 
Youth Futsal Championship." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) requires "the alien's receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." 2 Here, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary received any prizes or awards from his two teams 
competing at the U.S. Youth Futsal Championship. Although the Petitioner also referenced 
background material regarding the championship , the documentation does not show that participating 
or attending the event results in prizes or awards, let alone nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence. Here, the Petitioner has not identified the prizes or awards received 
by the Beneficiary at the futsal championship. 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary has "coached a youth player who went on to 
compete in the international soccer World Cup Youth ." The Petitioner references a letter froml I 
indicating that the Beneficiary coached his daughter, who "participate[d] in the 2018 Cup 
- the World Youth Cup - in Sweden representing! I as part of the Natational Team." 
1 See also Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&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 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, M.4(C)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanaul. 
2 
Again, this regulatory criterion requires the Beneficiary to receive nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. In this case, the Petitioner did not establish 
how coaching an athlete who later competed at a soccer championship equates to the Beneficiary 
receiving a prize or award . While the Petitioner provided background information relating to the 
I Cup, the evidence does not indicate any prizes or awards received by the Beneficiary. 
Finally, the Petitioner references our 2009 non-precedent decision concerning a tennis coach. This 
decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future 
adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the 
specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings , the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Although the Petitioner claims 
that the "Beneficiary had been instrumental in championships obtained with his players, thereby 
having the equivalence of obtaining such national awards," the Petitioner has not identified any 
championships obtained by his students. Regardless , the Petitioner has not shown that the 
Beneficiary's "receipt" of prizes or awards, consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the awards criterion. Although the 
Petitioner also claims the Beneficiary's eligibility regarding critical or essential capacity at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7), we need not address this ground because he 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 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iii).3 Accordingly, we 
reserve these issues.4 Consequently, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
the 0-1 visa classification as an individual 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. 
3 See also 2 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach) ; see also Matter of L-A-C- , 26 I&N Dec. 516, n.7 
(declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible) . 
3