remanded O-1A Case: Mixed Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24303378 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 17, 2023 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a martial arts academy and athletic training facility, employs the Beneficiary as a mixed 
martial arts (MMA) athletic trainer. The Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary's classification as 
an 0-1 nonimmigrant, a visa classification 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)(l 5)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 110 l(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Directorofthe California Service Center denied the petition on the following four grounds: 1) the 
Petitioner had not properly filed the petition , as the initial form submitted contains several incomplete 
sections, 2) the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's events or activities, 3) the Petitioner 
did not satisfy the advisory opinion requirement, and 4) the Petitioner did not show thatthe Beneficiary 
received a major, internationally recognized award, or satisfied at least three of eight possible forms 
of documentation. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
MatterofChawathe, 25 I&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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
With respect to the filing of petitions, the instructions to the Form I-129 0-1 nonimmigrant petition 
state, on page 4, that the Petitioner must answer "all questions fully and accurately. If an item is not 
applicable or the answer is 'none,' type or print 'NIA ."' The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(bX1) 
states: "Each benefit request must be properly completed." 
In addition, as relevant here, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C) requires an explanation of 
the nature of the events or activities, the beginning and ending dates for the events or activities, and a 
copy of any itinerary for the events or activities. Furthermore, section 214(c)(6)(A)(i) of the Act 
requires the petitioner to submit an advisory opinion from a peer group or a labor organization. See 
also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D) and 214.2(0)(5). If the petitioner establishes that an appropriate 
peer group or labor organization does not exist, then a petition may be adjudicated without the advisory 
opinion. See section214(c)(6)(C) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(G). 
As it relates to a beneficiary, 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 1he 
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)(l 5)( o )(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to continue to employ the Beneficiary to perform services as an MMA athletic 
trainer for its president, I I a professional MMA fighter for a period of one year. On the 
petition, filed in November 2021, the Petitioner did not fully complete section 3 on page 3, left blank 
most of section 4 on page 3, and provided unclear information on page 5, question 11. The initial 
supporting documentation consisted solely of the Beneficiary's 2020 federal and state income tax 
returns and Form W-2, his most recent 2021 paystub, the Petitioner's letter in support of the petition, 
the Petitioner's contract with the Beneficiary, andl I bout agreement for a fight in 
I 12021. The Petitioner's additional submission dated December 2021 was accompanied by 
a letter from a professional MMA athlete for whom the Beneficiary has provided 
services as a strength and conditioning coach, and additional documentation pertaining to her. 
The Director issued a request for further evidence (RFE) in March 2022, offering the Petitioner an 
opportunity to cure the deficiencies on the petition; demonstrate the Beneficiary's events including an 
itinerary; satisfy the advisory opinion requirement; and show that the Beneficiary received a major, 
internationally recognized award, or satisfied at least three of eight possible fonns of documentation. 
1 SccalsoMatterofChawathe, 25 I&NDec. 369, 3 76(AAO2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
The Petitioner, through counsel, submitted a letter in response to the Director's RFE, which indicated 
it was accompanied by several exhibits, and which were referred to throughout the letter. The Director 
denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
the requested classification. More specifically, the Director found that the Petitioner had submitted 
its RFE response with no supporting evidence and therefore did not sufficiently address the 
deficiencies noted in the RFE, noting that the unsupported asse1iions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. MatterofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 (BIA l 988);MatterofLaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 
1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the RFE response was accompanied by documentation consisting 
of numerous exhibits in addition to the letter in support of the response. The Petitioner further argues 
that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements, including at leastthree of the regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). In support of the appeal, the Petitioner provides a copy of the FedEX 
Standard Overnight receipt indicating that counsel mailed a package weighing three pounds to the 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) California Service Center on May 13, 2022. 
According to the FedEX website the package was delivered to USCIS on May 16, 2022, and was 
signed for byl I The evidence sufficiently establishes that the Petitioner submitted more 
than a letter in supp01i of its RFE response. The Petitioner also provides the documentation it asse1ts 
was submitted in its RFE response. We therefore find it appropriate to remand the matter for the 
Director to consider its impact on eligibility. The Director's decision will be withdrawn, and the 
matter will be remanded for further consideration ofall the arguments and documentation in the record, 
including in response to the Director's RFE and on appeal, and for the entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3