The Petitioner, a sports and culture envoy, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203 (b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. On appeai the Petitioner reasserts that she qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability.
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences arts or business. Because this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest.
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework:
(2) Aliens who are members ofthe professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available .. . to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United p. 2 States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States. (B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United States.
For the purpose of determining eligibility under section 203(b)(2)(A) ofthe Act, "exceptional ability" is defined as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The regulations further provide six criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied, for an individual to establish exceptional ability:
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution o f learning relating to the area o f exceptional ability;
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(C) A license to practice the profession or ce1iification for a particular profession or occupation; (D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; (E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or (F) Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits dete1mination); see also Visinscaiav.Beers,4F. Supp.3d 126, 131-32(D.D.C.2013);Rijalv. USCJS, 772F. Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece o f evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e , to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e f a c t to b e p r o v e n is p r o b a b l y true." MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010).
Analysis
As noted above, the Director concluded that the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies forclassificationasanindividualofexceptionalability. Specifically,theDirectorconcludedthatthe record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) but it satisfies none ofthe other criteria at 8C.F.R. §204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F),ofwhichatleastthreearerequired. Onappeal,thePetitionerasserts that the record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), (C), and (F). The Petitioner also asserts, in the alternative, that comparable evidence establishes that she qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). The Petitioner does not assert on appeal, and the record does not support the conclusion, that she satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (D), or (E). For the reasons discussed below, the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability.
First, we withdraw the Director's conclusion that the record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). Inthedecision,theextentoftheDirector'sanalysisofthatcriterionisasfollows:
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation The [P]etitioner has met this criterion.
The extent of the Director's discussion ofthe same criterion in a prior request for evidence (RFE) was identical. The Director did not identify what evidence establishes that the Petitioner has either a license to practice any particular profession or a certification for a particular profession or occupation. As noted above, the Petitioner described her job title in the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, as "sports/culture envoy;" however, the initial evidence submitted in support of the Form I-140 did not establish, specifically, what the "sports/culture envoy" endeavor would entail. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner clarified that her endeavor would entail "the establishment ofmy own Iacademy aimed at cultivating the next generation of top-notch American! I players and to further increase the popularity ofthis unique sport among American public in general." The Petitioner specified that she "personally will play a major role in the day-to-day operation and m a n a g eomf theisnintstitute by fully utilizingmy previous experience as a [h]ead [c]oach ofthe team ofthe Ministry ofForeignAffairs
The Petitioneralso asserted thatthe endeavor p. 4 would involve "the establishment of myown sports public relations firm to fully devoted to [sic] the further promotion and marketization of Iwith the goal of gradually transforming it into an American mainstream sporting event."
The record does not establish that coaching others to playl Iowning and operating ::e=J academy, or owning and operating a sports public relations firm requires a license to practice the profession or ce1iification for a particular profession or occupation, as contemplated by 8 C.F.R §204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). Onappeal,thePetitionerdoesnotidentifyanyparticulaervidenceintherecord that is a license or certification to coach others to play to own and operate al I academy, or to own and operate a sports public relations firm, beyond asserting that she has"[a] license to practice the profession lcoach)." We note that, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a copy of an English translation of a letter from the I Associationthatstatesthefollowing: "Inlinewiththeprofessionaltechnicalqualificationrequirement and our comprehensive assessment of your qredentials, this letter confirms that effective January 1, 2008, you have beencertifiedasl._ _ _ _ 1st [C]lass Coach." However, the letter is not supported by corroborating evidence that establishes such a certification is required to work as al coachin ItheUnitedStates,orelsewhere.Support letters generic or unsupported Becausetherecorddoesnotsupporttheconclusion that the petitioner satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), we withdraw the Director's conclusion that "[the Petitioner] has met this criterion."
A. AtLeast10YearsofFull-TimeExperienceintheOccupation
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) requires evidence in the form ofletter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the Petitioner has at least 10 years of full-time experience in the occupation. As addressed above, although the job title provided in the Form I-140 is "sports/culture e n vthe Poetitioyner c,la"rified itn rhesponse to the RFE that the occupation would primarily be a coach, with other activities in public relations and management. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "there are more than 8 letters, confirming the [Petitioner's] employment, which is more than 10-year full [sic] time engagement." Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, however, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has any full-time experience coachingI Ior in public relations or management.
The record contains a letter dated May 2021 from the I ISports School." The letter asserts that the Petitioner "served as part-time coach for ou I Iteam" from June 2008 until January 2016. The letter reiterates that the Petitioner worked part-time during that period, performing tasks "which normally are done by full time coaches." The record also contains a letter dated June 2021 from Chair of t h e National Offshore Oil Comoration. The letter asserts that, since July 2008, the Petitioner "has been serving as coach for our I Iteam ... three times a week, a total of 8 hours/wk."
Next, the record contains a letter dated January 2020, indicating it is from the Union Committee ofthe ; however, the letter does not identify the author's name or position on the committee Theletterasserts that the Petitioner "has been serving as the Coach of the I Association of t h e f o r p. 5 many years the Petitioner has been serving as that coach and whether she has been serving as that coach full time. Although the record also contains a letter from formerl Ambassador to the Republic of Colombia, discussing the Petitioner's coaching experience, that letter is not from a current or former employer and, furthermore, it does not specify how many years the Petitioner worked as a lcoach or whether she did so full time. See id. The other letters in the record address the Petitioner's experience as al player, not as a coach; therefore, they do not address the Petitioner's experience in the occupations of lcoach, public relations, or management.
In summation, the record does not contain evidence in the form of letters from current or former employers showing that the Petitioner has at least 10 years offitll-time experience in the occupations of Icoaching, public relations, or management. See id. Thus, the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B).
B. RecognitionforAchievementsandSignificantContributionstotheIndustryorField The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) requires evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or eal, the Petitioner asserts that four letters-from the head coach ofthe business organizations. On a
Portugal National Team,
Team, the Embassy o a p. 6 most outstanding! Mplayers nationally under age 18" when she was selected to the I I NationalYouthI Teamin2000and200I. However,beyond beingselectedtothenational team and being among the top 20 youth I Iplayers in the letter does not address achievements and significant contributions to the industry that the Petitioner made.
Next, the record also contains a letter from the Embassy of t h e in the Republic of Colombia dated January 2014, addressed to the Embassy of the Republic of Colombia. The letter indicates that the Petitioner "will visit Colombia from May 16 to 24 of this year in order to participate in a I IColombiaFriendshi Tournament, organized by the Diplomatic Mission and the Colombian _ _ _ _ Federation, to commemorate the 35-year diplomatic relations of our countries." However, similar to the letter from the coach of the Portugal National letter does not establish that the Petitioner's participation in the tournament is the type of achievement and significant _ _ _ _.contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). For example, the record does not establish the requirements, if any, to qualify for participating in the Colombia FriendshipI Itournament; the number of other participants in the tournament; whether the Petitioner would participate as a player, coach, or otherwise; the level of local, national, and international attention the tournament drew from spectators and fellowl I players; and other relevant details about the tournament.
As discussed above, the record contains a letter dated January 2020, indicating it is from the Union Committeeofthe however, theletterdoesnotidentifytheauthor'sname or position on the committee. The letter asserts that the Petitioner "made great contributions to the improvement of the technical level of the members of the IAssociation of our I. At the same time, [the Petitioner] has also carriedout a lot of meaningful work in the popularization and promotion ofl las a form of public sports." However, the letter does not elaborate on the "contributions" the Petitioner made; how she improved the technical level of players; the nature and specific results of the work the Petitioner carried out to popularize and promot ITeam, the Embass lcolombia Friendship p. 7 to others, and the owner and operator of a public relations firm that would specifically promote IIExceptional ability not established
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "criteria for exce tional ability listed at 8.CFR Section 204.5(K)(3), do not readily apply to the filed [sic] o f T h e Petitioner asserts that her "national/internationalaward-winningrecord,recognitionfrom N ationall I[sic]and, Embassyof araremoreappropriateinevaluationofthe[Petitioner's] exceptional ability." However, the evidence the Petitioner asserts is comparable, as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii), does not relate to her abilities in the occupations of a I Icoach, public relations agent, or business manager. To the extent that the Petitioner's awards, discussed above, establish her ability, they relate to herl playing ability, not to her coaching, public relations, or business management abilities. Relatedly, the letter from the fonner head coach of the INational! ITeam, discussed above, refers to the Petitioner's perfonnance as a youth Iplayer,nothercoaching,publicrelations,orbusinessmana ementabilities. Additionally, asdiscussedabove,theletterfromtheEmbassyofthe in theRepublicof Colombia addresses the Petitioner's participation in the _ Colombia Friendship! I Tournament;however,itdoesnotspecifythenatureinwhichthePetitionerparticipated. Therefore, it does not establish that the Petitioner has exceptional! !coaching, public relations, or business management abilities.
The Petitioner does not otherwise identify on appeal comparable evidence that may establish that she has exceptional ability in the occupations of coaching, public relations agent, or business manager as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii), and the record does not support such a conclusion.
In summation, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied at least three o f the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and, in the alternative, the record does not establish through comparable evidence that the Petitioner has exceptional ability as al business manager as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). establish that the Petitioner is an individual of exceptional ability. Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2)-(3).
Conclusion
Icoach, public relations agent, or Therefore, the record does not See section 203(b)(2)(A) of the As the Petitioner has not established that she qualifies for second-preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.