remanded O-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 06 163 507 19 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: NO1 i b 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101 (a)(l5)(0)(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 06 163 50719 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The director's decision shall be withdrawn and 
the case will be remanded to the director for the entry of a new decision. 
The petitioner is a mixed martial arts academy. The beneficiary is a "martial arts instructor (coach)." The 
petitioner seeks 0-1 classification of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability under section 
101 (a)(l5)(O)(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 for three years at an annual salary of $350 per week (or $1 8,200 annually). 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfies the 
standards for classification within the meaning of section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act. 
The petitioner, through counsel, submits a timely appeal. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary should be considered under the criteria relating to an alien with 
extraordinary ability in the arts. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv). However, these criteria are not applicable to 
athletes. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) provides, in pertinent part: 
Arts includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as, but not limited to, fine arts, 
visual arts, culinary arts, and performing arts. Aliens engaged in the field of arts include not only 
the principal creators and performers but other essential persons such as, but not limited to, 
directors, set designers, lighting designers, sound designers, choreographers, choreologoists, 
conductors, orchestrators, coaches, arranges, musical supervisors, costume designers, makeup 
artists, flight masters, stage technicians, and animal trainers. 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. The 
evidence submitted in support of thls claim relates to the beneficiary's accomplishments and participation in 
athletic and sporting events. There is no evidence that he has a record of accomplishment in the fine arts, culinary 
arts, or the performing arts. The beneficiary is a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu instructor and coach and, therefore, should 
have been considered under the criteria related to an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(0)(3)(iii). A review of the record on appeal reveals that the director applied the incorrect criteria to the 
instant case. Rather than applying the criteria for an alien with extraordinary ability in athletics, the director 
applied the criteria related to an alien with extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry. 
See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(~). Accordingly, the case is remanded for consideration of the petition under the 
criteria relating to aliens with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
In addition, we must also address the director's findings related to the petitioner's location and its "ability to 
provide the beneficiary the facilities to work in an atmosphere of professionalism" which were based on the 
determination that the petitioning business was located in s&e fami& town home. On appeal, counsel exp 
that while the ~etitioner's mailing address mav be at a town home, the petitioner is physically located at hh 
While not required to, the AAO has independently 
WAC 06 163 50719 
Page 3 
confirmed that the petitioner's address is at an address on 
 in springfield.' 
Accordingly, we additionally withdraw the director's finding on 
The decision of the director dated July 12, 2006 shall be withdrawn. The director will evaluate the evidence in 
the context of the evidentiary criteria for an alien of extraordmary ability in athletics at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(0)(3)(iii) 
and enter a new decision to be certified to the AAO. 
ORDER. The director's decision is withdrawn and the case is remanded for the entry of a new decision, which 
shall be certified to the AAO.