dismissed O-1A Case: Sumo Wrestling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25037746 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 14, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a sports equipment and athlete management business, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, 
a sumo wrestler, as an individual of extraordinary ability . This 0-1 nonimmigrant visa classification 
is 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 10l(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S .C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary had 
not 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) . 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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). 
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). 
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)(])-(8). The Director determined that the 
Beneficiary fulfilled only one criterion, awards at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(]). On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary satisfies three 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 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on his membership with the 
Egyptian National Team (ENT) through his participation in the Egyptian Judo, Aikido, and Sumo 
Federation (EJASF) and references a letter by A-A-M-A-S- who indicated: 
... In order to be on [ENT], there are qualifying competitions that an aspiring athlete 
must compete in. The most famous competition is the Egyptian National Competition, 
which takes place in Egypt itself. Upon the completion of every competition, the 
corresponding National Team for an athlete's requisite sport will only take the Gold, 
Silver, and Bronze Medal winners to be on the team. The corresponding National Team 
for Sumo Wrestling is called The Egyptian Sumo Aikido and Judo Team. This 
organization holds several competitions every year, between 2-5 major competitions, 
and only the winners of the competitions are afforded the privilege to be on the National 
Team. Being on the National Team means that an athlete gets to compete with other 
National Team members, who are also at the upper echelon of their sport and compete 
on behalf of the National Team not only nationally, but internationally. 
Being on the [ENT] is the highest rank that a person can obtain in athletics in Egypt. 
It is the most prestigious place an athlete can hope to find themselves. Anyone is 
afforded the opportunity to join athletic competitions in Egypt, but a member of the 
2 
National Team has to compete in every single competition that is held by the National 
Team in order to maintain his place within the ranks of the team. To put it simply, if 
you compete in one of the competitions and you don't medal, you get kicked out. You 
can get back on the team if you win again in a competition, but you have to keep 
medaling in competitions in order to maintain your place on the team - it is that 
prestigious. 
Because of this rigorous standard, only the top athletes in Egypt qualify for spots on 
the National Team. It is also crucial because the National Team is the governing body 
in Egypt that sends people to the Olympics, which is the hallmark of a country's most 
important athletic organization .... 
The Petitioner also asserts: 
The various federations within [ENT] oftentimes do not maintain a rigorous, strict set 
of easily discoverable criteria, documented in black and white terms, that athletes are 
expected to follow and refer to when investigating earning a spot on their discipline's 
coveted national team. Rather, the general culture surrounding athletics in Egypt is 
based on personal knowledge and participation at various training camps and clinics, 
which then translates into a strict recruitment rubric upon an athlete's demonstration of 
skill and prowess at one of these events. 
While the Petitioner claims A-A-M-A-S-'s letter supports his assertions, the letter makes no mention 
of the absence of written requirements, such as bylaws or other codified criteria, for establishing 
membership with ENT. Nor does the letter discuss the Petitioner's references to "general cultural 
surrounding athletics in Egypt," "personal knowledge," and "participation at various training camps 
and clinics." Furthermore, the letter does not cite to any governing authority or other supporting 
evidence as a basis for the ENT' s membership requirements. 
Similarly, the Petitioner asserts that "[j]ust because [ENT] does not maintain strict, black and white, 
written requirements for membership, but rather operates on a system of recruitment and personal 
familiarity with its athletes, does not mean that [the Beneficiary] was not a member of a prestigious 
organization requiring outstanding achievement of their members." This regulatory criterion does not 
require "strict, black and white, written requirements for membership." However, the burden remains 
with the Petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). In this case, the 
Petitioner makes unsupported claims regarding the absence of written requirements for ENT 
membership. Neither A-A-M-A-S-'s letter cites to any established requirements as a basis for his 
opinion, nor does any of the other documentation contained in the record makes any mention of 
"general culture." 
Notwithstanding the above, in order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must not only establish that 
membership in the association requires outstanding achievements its members, but those outstanding 
achievements are judged by recognized national or international experts for membership within the 
association. 1 Although A-A-M-A-S-'s letter discusses the importance of medaling in competitions, it 
1 See also 2 USC1S Policy Manual, M.4(C)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 
does not address the selecting body who judges the outstanding achievements for membership and 
whether it is comprised of recognized national or international experts. In fact, based on the letter's 
content, ENT's membership is based on medaling in competitions rather than recognized national or 
international experts judging outstanding achievements for membership. While the Petitioner 
indicates that it provided Facebook posts from EJASF "shar[ing] news about the infinite achievements 
of its athletes, and news surrounding their various events and competitions" and evidence "of the high 
caliber of [ENT] as the governing body for sumo wrestling in Egypt," the issue for this criterion is 
whether membership with ENT requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts, rather than the association's reputation or standing in the 
field. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that membership with ENT requires outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary "was previously awarded P-1 nonimmigrant status 
as an athlete of international recognition," "which should prima facie establish in the instant O-lA 
application that he is a member of an organization requiring outstanding achievement of its members." 
As relevant here, P-1 nonimmigrant status, a separate and distinct nonimmigrant visa classification, is 
reserved for individuals who are coming to the United States to perform services as an internationally 
recognized athlete, individually or as part of a group or team. See section 101 (a)( 15)(P) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(l)(i). Neither the Act nor the regulations for P-1 nonimmigrant status require 
individuals to be members of associations requiring outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts, as required for eligibility under the membership criterion 
for 0-1 nonimmigrant status. Thus, the prior approval of P-1 nonimmigrant status does not 
demonstrate eligibility for the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
Furthermore, the prior P-1 approval does not preclude USCIS from denying a nonimmigrant visa 
petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, and case law. Many 
Form I-129 nonimmigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approved prior nonimmigrant 
petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. 
US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 
1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajj'd, 905 F. 2d at 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority over 
the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to 
the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another nonimmigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or other 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on having "been featured in 
Al-Ahram." In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about 
4 
the Beneficiary in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, 
date, and author of the material. 2 The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted three translated 
articles entitled, 
and ___________ 
________________ The translations, however, do not include the required 
dates and authors of the material. In fact, the translations do not show that Al-Ahram published the 
articles. Moreover, none of the articles reflect published material about the Beneficiary. Instead, the 
articles discuss wrestling championships and competitions with the Beneficiary mentioned one time 
in each article, simply listing him as a participant among the other competitors. Articles that are not 
about the beneficiary do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. Cf, Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not 
about the actor). 3 Because the Petitioner did not include the required dates and authors, show the 
articles qualify as published material about the Beneficiary, and Al-Ahram published them, we need 
not make a determination regarding the status as a professional or major trade publication or other 
major medium. 4 
The Petitioner also contends that he has been "feature[d] in the U.S. Sumo Federation and USA 
Sumo's social media and websites, arguably, the two major trade publications for sumo wrestling in 
the United States." The record reflects that the Petitioner provided screenshots from 
I I However, none of 
the screenshots mention the Beneficiary. Although many of the screenshots contain photographs, none 
of the captions credit the Beneficiary, let alone show published material about him relating to his work. 
Furthermore, some of the screenshots indicate videos; however, the Petitioner did not provide a 
transcript of the video footage or demonstrate published material about the Beneficiary. 5 In addition, 
the material does not contain the required titles, dates, and authors of the material. In fact, it appears 
the postings occurred after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing 
of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). As the material does not show the regulatory requirements 
and reflect published material about the Beneficiary, we need not make a determination relating to the 
standings of the websites and individual social media platforms. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that "since the filing of the original submission and since the submission 
of the response to the Service's request for Evidence, [the Beneficiary] was interviewed by NTD 
Television ... as part of his Gold medal win at thel This event occurred after the 
initial filing of the petition. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Moreover, we will not consider this claim 
and evidence as it was not presented before the Director. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 
766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given 
a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence 
2 See also 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
3 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) (providing 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, 
as required under this criterion). 
4 See 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) (reflecting 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 See 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) (indicating an example ofa transcript of professional or major audio or 
video coverage of the beneficiary and the beneficiary's work). 
5 
submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of 
proceeding" before the Director); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the membership and published material 
criteria. 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 10l(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iii).6 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 7 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. 
6 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
7 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6