dismissed O-1A Case: Soccer

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 05 175 50496 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 6 E, ‘JOG 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. !j 1 lOl(a)(lS)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
U 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 175 50496 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition in a decision dated 
March 30,2006. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner, Southern Soccer Coaltion, is "a non-profit soccer organization for youths under the age of 18." The 
petitioner seeks 0-1 classification of the beneficiary, as an alien with extraor- ability in athletics under 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(0)(i), in order 
to employ him in the United States as a soccer trainer for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, fmding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has received 
sustained national or international acclaim as a soccer trainer. 
The petitioner, through counsel submits a timely appeal. 
Section 101 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in thejeld 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part, that: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in theJields of science, education, 
business, or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(1) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) 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; 
SRC 05 175 50496 
Page 3 
(3) 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 classification is sought, which 
shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary 
translation; 
(4) 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; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in the field; 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
journals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (0)(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. 
The beneficiary in this matter was born in Brazil and is a naturalized citizen of Venezuela. The evidence in the 
record indicates that the beneficiary last entered the United States as a B-2 nonimrnigrant visitor on June 11, 
2004. After a careful review of the record, it must be concluded that the petitioner has failed to overcome the 
grounds for denial of the petition. The record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary is an alien with 
extraordinary ability in athletics. First, there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received an award equivalent 
to that listed at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), such as the Nobel Prize. Second, as will be discussed, the record is 
not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has met at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 
2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the.field of endeavor. 
As evidence of the beneficiary's awards as a soccer player, counsel lists the names of teams that the petitioner 
played on and awards that he has won. The record remains absent evidence that these teams were nationally or 
internationally recognized, like that of a country's national or Olympic team, or that the awards won were 
national or international awards. Moreover, the record reflects that the last awards received by the beneficiary as 
a soccer player were in the late 1980s, seventeen years prior to the filing of the petition in 2004. As the statute 
SRC 05 175 50496 
Page 4 
requires evidence of "sustained" acclaim, we cannot conclude that the record demonstrates the beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim as a soccer player when the petition was filed. 
That said, the question of whether the beneficiary has sustained acclaim as a trainer must still be considered. In 
this instance, while the petitioner has submitted evidence regarding the beneficiary's experience as a soccer 
player, the petitioner intends to hire the beneficiary as a coach or trainer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h) 
requires the beneficiary to "continue work in the area of expertise." While a soccer player and a coach or 
trainer certainly share knowledge of soccer, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. This 
interpretation has been upheld in federal court. In Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court 
stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
working in the same profession in 
 e has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any 
profession in that field. For exampl 
 extraordinary ability as a baseball pIayer does not 
imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball 
industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Id. at 91 8. The court noted a consistent history in this area. We accept that the awards criterion is not readily 
applicable to coaches and trainers. Thus, we will accept evidence of the awards won by individuals or teams while 
actively being trained or coached by the beneficiary as comparable evidence to meet this criterion. 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.50(4). From the evidence in the record, it appears that the beneficiary switched fiom competing as a 
player to coaching and training in the early 1990s. As such, he has had ample time to develop a reputation as a 
trainer. The longer the time since the petitioner switched from competing to training, the less relevance we 
accord to the petitioner's accomplishments as a competitor. 
As evidence of the beneficiary's awards as a trainer, the petitioner claims that the petitioner has been the 
trainer of "several soccer teams, and private and public schools," and "amateur soccer teams and schools." 
Although the petitioner lists teams and schools coached by the beneficiary, it provides no evidence that any of 
these teams won national or international awards while the beneficiary was coaching them and provides no 
evidence that these teams or players were nationally or internationally recognized. 
The petitioner also list professional teams for which the beneficiary was coach and claims that those teams 
won awards such as the "Zulia State Championship," the "International Championship Copa Aniversario 
Centro Gallego" and the "National Championship Hermandad Gallega de Caracas." The petitioner provides no 
evidence that these competitions were nationally or internationally recognized. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). While the beneficiary also received awards of recognition and 
achievement fiorn the individual teams that he was coached, such awards are not considered to be national or 
international awards. 
While working for the petitioner, the beneficiary's teams have participated and placed in numerous 
tournaments, such as the "Disney Cup International Soccer Tournament" the "West Pines Kickoff Classic" the 
SRC 05 175 50496 
Page 5 
"President's Day Cup," and the "South Florida United Soccer League." However, the petitioner fails to 
provide any evidence of the significance of these tournaments. Accordingly, the record does not support a 
finding that those individuals or teams trained or coached by the beneficiary have achieved significant recognition 
such that, as a trainer, the beneficiary can be considered to have sustained acclaim. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which classification is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines orjields. 
For criterion number two, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary is a member of the following associations: 
International Federation of Soccer (FIFA), Youth Academy 
Coach Soccer Venezuelan Federation 
Professional Soccer Labor Union of Rio de Janeiro 
Soccer Association of the State of Zulia, Venezuela 
U.S. National "C" Coaching License, U. S. Soccer Federation 
Florida Youth Soccer Association 
However, the petitioner provides no documentation related to the requirements for becoming a member of the 
listed organizations much less that membership requires outstanding achievements as judged by nationally or 
internationally recognized experts. While the petitioner also submits evidence of the beneficiary's licensure as 
a coach, we do not find such licensure is equivalent to membership in an association. 
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 thejeld for which classijication is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such 
published material, and any necessary translation. 
For criterion number three, the petitioner submitted several undated, uncaptioned photographs, as well as blurbs in 
unnamed publications which mention the beneficiary's teams and/or the beneficiary's name. We do not consider 
such evidence to be published material about the beneficiary. 
The petitioner also submits numerous copies of articles that are not accompanied by a translation. Without the 
required translation, we are unable to determine whether such articles are considered to be about the beneficiary. 
Similarly, many of the articles do not contain the name of the publication, while others appear to have been 
published in a local papers or newsletters. Such evidence is not considered material which has been published in 
professional or major trade publications. 
The petitioner also submits numerous untranslated articles related to beneficiary when he was a competitive 
soccer player. However, such evidence is not considered to be related to the beneficiary work as a soccer 
SRC 05 175 50496 
Page 6 
coach or trainer, the field in which the beneficiary seeks classification. Accordingly, we find that the evidence 
contained in the record does not establish that material has been published about the beneficiary in major trade 
publications or major media related to the beneficiary's work as a soccer coach or trainer. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets 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 alliedfield ofspecialization to that for which classijication is sought. 
The petitioner did not claim that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion or submit any documents in relation to this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major signijicance in the 
field. 
For criterion number five, the petitioner submitted several letters attesting to the beneficiary's expertise and ability 
as a competitor and a trainer and coach. While we do not dispute the writers' high opinion of the beneficiary, the 
record does not contain any evidence which demonstrates that the beneficiary made an original contribution of 
major sign$cance in his field of endeavor. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in thefield, in professionaljoumals or other major media. 
No evidence was submitted in relation to criterion number six. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner does not assert that the beneficiary meets this criterion.' 
Evidence that the alien has either communded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration 
,for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 
On the Form 1-129, the petitioner indicates that the petitioner will receive a salary of $300 per week or $15,600 per 
year. However, the petitioner fails to submit any evidence which demonstrates that an annual salary of $15,600 is 
significantly high in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
1 
Although the beneficiary's position as head coach could be considered a critical or essential capacity, we note 
that the record contains no evidence that any of the teams coached by the petitioner have a distinguished 
reputation. 
SRC 05 175 50496 
Page 7 
This evidence contained in the record is insufficient to establish eligibility for this restrictive visa 
classification, which requires extensive documentation of extraordinary achievement. The extraordinary ability 
provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily 
ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability, the statute requires evidence of 
"sustained national or international acclaim" and evidence that the alien's achievements have been recognized 
in the field of endeavor through "extensive documentation." The petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary's abilities have been so recognized. In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is "at the very top" of his field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 9 
214.2(0)(3)(ii). The beneficiary's achievements do not rise to this level. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought 
remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, that burden has not been 
met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.