EB-1 Green Card AAO Case Summary - Martial Arts Coach Denial
The following is a summary of an Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decision that reviewed USCIS’ denial of an EB-1 green card application filed by a martial arts coach.
These decisions are helpful as they provide information on U.S. immigration’s requirements, and insight on trends in EB-1 green card application adjudications.
Unless otherwise noted, the Law Office of Brian D. Zuccaro, PLLC did not assist in the filing or appeal of these EB-1 applications.
AAO Case:
Background:
The applicant was a competitor and coach who competed in numerous national and international competitions. He filed an EB-1 application in order to enter the United States to work as a martial arts coach. (The AAO case did not identify the applicant’s martial arts field.)
USCIS denied the applicant’s EB-1 green card application arguing that he did not satisfy at least 3 of the 10 regulatory criteria.
The applicant appealed the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) arguing that he met 7 of the required criteria.
The following provides a summary of the AAO’s analysis on the applicant’s EB-1 case.
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards
The AAO found that the record supported USCIS' determination that the applicant met this criterion, but did not mention the award the applicant had won.
Membership in associations that require international achievements
The applicant claimed that he met this criterion based on his possession of a black belt. (The AAO did not indicate the martial art field that the applicant possessed his black belt in.)
As evidence the applicant submitted:
A copy of his black belt certificate
Documentation explaining the process for obtaining a black belt certificate.
An article about the individual who awarded the applicant his black belt
USCIS held that the applicant did not meet this criteria because the materials provided did not show the eligibility requirements for a blackbelt, e.g. the “bylaws, governing regulations, or any other authoritative requirements for the” blackbelt.
The AAO held that the applicant did not meet this criterion because he did not provide evidence demonstrating the membership requirements for a black belt that showed it required outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Participating as a judge of the work of others in the field
The AAO found that the record supported USCIS' determination that the applicant met this criterion but did not mention the specific evidence presented.
Published material about the applicant in professional or major trade publications or other major media
The AAO noted that it would first evaluate (1) if the articles were about the applicant in his field and if they contained the title, date and author; and (2) if so, whether the articles were professional or major publications.
USCIS held that the applicant did not meet this criterion because some articles were not primarily about the applicant, several articles lacked publication names and dates, and they were not supported by publishing information or citation statistics.
The AAO agreed with USCIS because the articles only mentioned the applicant’s name in passing, and were not about his work in the field. The AAO discounted another article that could have qualified because it did not include the title, author, or date of publication.
The AAO also held that the applicant failed to prove any of the articles where from major publications because, e.g. the applicant did not provide circulation statistics for the publication.
Finally, the AAO noted that the articles related to the applicant’s work as an athlete/competitor, and should not be considered as evidence since the applicant sought his EB-1 as a coach.
Display of work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases
The AAO denied the applicant’s argument that his participation in a martial arts event met this criterion. The AAO found the event was more of an athletic competition than an artistic venue.
Performing in leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation
The applicant claimed that he met this criterion based on his role as a head coach at a martial arts academy.
The AAO rejected this argument because of the lack of evidence that the applicant held a leadership position with the organization. The AAO stated that “merely coaching, even if the performance of some students is considered noteworthy, does not equate to…performing in a leading role.”
The AAO also held that the academy did not have a distinguished reputation despite receiving some praise from websites. The AAO stated that there was no evidence that the academy “received media coverage at a level that shows its eminence, distinction, or excellence, which might confirm its distinguished reputation.”
Conclusion
The AAO concluded that the applicant did not meet at least three of the ten criteria.
The AAO nevertheless conducted its Kazarian final merits determination, and found that the evidence in the aggregate did not meet the acclaim and recognition needed for an EB-1 approval.
The AAO noted that the applicant sought “a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields” and that “USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet” the EB-1 standard.
As a result, the AAO dismissed the applicant’s appeal.