remanded O-1A Case: Soccer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25787774 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 06, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a sports camp, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a soccer director. To do 
so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant 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)(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). The matter 
is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and contends 
that the Director did not follow U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) guidance in 
determining whether the Beneficiary is coming to work in her "area of extraordinary ability." 1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa'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 
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 
1 Current policy guidance concerning the dete1mination of whether the beneficiary is coming to work in the beneficiary 's 
"area of extraordinary ability" is located at 2 USCJS Policy Manual M.4(F) , https://www.uscis.gov /policymanual ; see also 
USCIS Policy Alert, P A-2022-03 , 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status for Persons of Extraordinary Ability or Achievement (Jan. 21, 
2022), https://www.uscis.gov /sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates /20220121-Extraordinary Ability .pdf. 
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).2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary, who is 33 years-old, indicated in her resume that she is a professional soccer player 
who has competed for soccer leagues in Spain, Turkey, and Colombia since 2013. She also provided 
that as a member of the Colombian women's national soccer team she won a gold medal at the 2019 
I I and a silver medal at the 20151 I I I Further, she indicated that she competed as a member of the Colombia women's football 
squad in the 2012 and 2016 I and the 2011 and 2015 ______ 
The Petitioner is a sports camp for children ages 7 to 12. According to pages 4 and 5 of the petition, 
the Petitioner seeks to hire the Beneficiary to work as a "Soccer Director." The record includes an 
executed "Employee Contract," that substantiates that the Beneficiary will receive an hourly wage of 
$15 and that her duties will involve soccer coaching and directing the Petitioner's soccer training 
programs and clinics. The Beneficiary's occupation in which she intends to work in the United States 
is therefore as a soccer coach or trainer. 
Accordingly, to establish her eligibility for the classification, the Beneficiary must provide sufficient 
evidence showing her extraordinary ability in soccer, either as an athlete or a coach, and, if as an 
athlete, that coaching or training is within her area of expertise. See section 101 (a)( 15)( o )(i) of the 
Act. The Petitioner has not asserted or documented either a major, internationally recognized award 
or that the Beneficiary satisfies three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8) as a coach. 
Based on the above, the sole issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has shown the Beneficiary's 
extraordinary ability as an athlete and whether athletic coaching or training is within her area of 
expertise. 
2 See also Matter of Chawathe, 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 
The Petitioner initially submitted evidence pertaining to four of the eight criteria, including evidence 
of awards the Beneficiary received as an athlete, membership, published materials, and original 
contributions. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(3) and (5). In a request for evidence (RFE), the 
Director repeatedly emphasized that evidence relating to the Beneficiary's career as a competitive 
athlete was not relevant and would not be considered. For example, with respect to the initial evidence 
of the Beneficiary's prizes and awards as a soccer athlete, the RFE stated that the Beneficiary's 
"awards and recognitions w[]ere at the professional soccer player level and not that associated as a 
Director of Soccer or Coach." 
Similarly, with respect to the published materials criterion, the Director indicated that the submitted 
"articles only speak about the beneficiary as an international soccer player and not i[ n] the capacity of 
a coach or director. .. " Finally, the RFE addressed the Beneficiary's original contributions, noting 
that the submitted testimonials provide "details about the beneficiary's professional soccer success" 
but did not "show how the beneficiary's original contributions lead to a significant impact in the 
coaching related duties." 
The record reflects that the Petitioner responded to the RFE by submitting additional evidence related 
to the Beneficiary's career as an athlete. Within its response, the Petitioner included a new claim that 
the Beneficiary's receipt of a gold medal for the Colombian women's national soccer team at the 2019 
I I qualifies as a major, internationally recognized award at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). In denying the petition, the Director did not consider evidence related to the 
Beneficiary's athletic achievements as a competitor, published material about her achievements as a 
soccer athlete, or evidence of her original contributions as a soccer athlete in the field. 
We find that the Director erred by excluding consideration of the Beneficiary's athletic achievements 
in determining whether the Petitioner provided evidence either of "a major, internationally recognized 
award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of the eight initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 1)-( 8). 3 The record shows that the Beneficiary intends to transition into coaching 
3 As the Petitioner notes, when considering a petition for a beneficiary who is transitioning to a new occupation, such as 
"an acclaimed athlete coming to be a coach," the USCIS Policy Manual provides guidance for dete1mining, as required, 
whether the proposed work in the United States is within the "area of extraordinary ability" as follows: 
There is no statutory or regulatory definition of the term "field" or the phrase "area of extraordinary 
ability." For purposes of evaluating an O-IA [] beneficiary's extraordinary ability in the field, USCIS 
interprets the tenn "field" to allow consideration of acclaim and recognition for achievements in multiple 
related occupations (that is, those involving shared skillsets, knowledge, or expertise). Similarly, in the 
O-lA [] context, USCIS interprets the phrase "area of extraordinary ability" broadly to include not only 
the specific occupation( s) in which the beneficiary has garnered acclaim, but also other occupations that 
involve shared skillsets, knowledge, or expertise. 
Accordingly, when determining whether the beneficiary is coming to work in the beneficiary's "area of 
extraordinary ability," officers focus on whether the prospective work or services involve skillsets, 
knowledge, or expertise shared with the occupation(s) in which the beneficiary has garnered acclaim. 
In evaluating whether occupations involve shared skillsets, knowledge, or expertise to an extent that they 
may be considered within the same area of extraordinary ability, officers evaluate the totality of 
information and evidence presented. Relevant factors include, but are not limited to: 
3 
from her career as a competitive athlete. The Director should have requested and considered additional 
evidence related to her athletic career to determine whether she satisfies either a major, internationally 
recognized award or at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria. 
As a result of these errors, the RFE was deficient as it was not based on a complete review of the initial 
evidence and limited the Petitioner's response in that it indicated that evidence relating to the 
Beneficiary's career as a competitive athlete would not be considered. As the matter will be remanded, 
the Director should issue a new RFE after reviewing the evidence relating to the Beneficiary's career 
as an athlete. 
As noted, the Director should request any additional evidence deemed warranted and should allow the 
Petitioner to submit additional evidence in support of its petition within a reasonable period of time. If 
the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies the requirement either of a major, internationally 
recognized award or of at least three criteria, the decision should include an analysis of the totality of 
all the evidence in the record to determine whether the Beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of her field. 
See section 10l(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 4 
Further, if the Director concludes that the record establishes the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability as 
an athlete, the decision should examine if the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary is corning to 
the United States to continue work in the "area of extraordinary ability." See 10l(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o)(l)(ii)(A)(l). Because the Beneficiary intends to work in the United States 
as a soccer coach or trainer, the decision should include an analysis of whether the record establishes 
that that the beneficiary's area of extraordinary ability includes coaching. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
• Whether the past and prospective occupations are in the same industry or are otherwise related 
based on shared duties or expertise; 
• Whether the prospective occupation is a supervisory, management, or other leadership position 
that oversees the beneficiary's previous position or otherwise requires shared knowledge, skills, 
or expertise; and 
• Whether it is common for persons in one occupation to transition to the other occupation(s) 
based upon their experience and knowledge. 
See 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(F); see also USCIS Policy Alert, PA-2022-03, 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status for 
Persons of Extraordinary Ability or Achievement (Jan. 21, 2022), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/ default/files/ document/policy-manual-updates/20220121- Extraordinary Ability.pdf. 
4 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
4