Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative …...visas available to certain high performing athletes and coaches. Sections 204(i)(2) and 214(c)(4)(A) of the Act. The Director of

MATTER OF 1-F-M-, LLC

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: NOV. 13,2017

PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER

The Petitioner, a professional boxer management business, seeks to classify the Beneficiaries as internationally recognized athletes. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(P)(i)(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a). This P-IA classification makes nonimmigrant visas available to certain high performing athletes and coaches. Sections 204(i)(2) and 214(c)(4)(A) of the Act.

The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not contain, as required, an itinerary.

On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that an itinerary is unrealistic and not required.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

Under section 10l(a)(15)(P)(i) of the Act, a foreign national having a foreign residence which he or she has no intention of abandoning may be authorized to come to the United States temporarily to perform services for an employer or sponsor. Section 214(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(4)(A)(i), provides that section 101 (a)(l5)(P)(i)(a) of the Act applies to a foreign national who:

(I) performs as an athlete, individually or as part of a group or team, at an internationally recognized level of performance:

(II) is a professional athlete, as defined in section 204(i)(2):

(III) performs as an athlete, or as a coach, as part of a team or franchise that is located in the United States and a member of a foreign league or association of 15 or more amateur sports teams, if [certain conditions apply, or]

(IV) is a professional athlete or amateur athlete who performs individually or as part of a group in a theatrical ice skating production ... [.]

.

Maller of 1-F-M-, LLC

II. ANALYSIS

The Petitioner filed the petition as an agent for the two Beneficiaries, seeking admission over a five­year period from March 2017 to March 2022. 1 In a subsequent submission, one of the Petitioner's members, indicated he had received his promoter' s license and would "not only act as Agent for the two Beneficiaries, but also to serve as one of their Employers in the early stages of their boxing careers." While each Beneficiary is a boxer from the same country, they do not compete as a team and, as the Petitioner documents on appeal, boxing is an individual sport with no team competitions.

The Petitioner has presented contracts and materials pertaining to the Beneficiaries' careers. The initial submission included training contracts between each Beneficiary and and Advisory Agreements between them and the Petitioner. According to the Advisory Agreement, the Petitioner will (1) advise and counsel the Beneficiaries, especially with regard to remunerative boxing contests, (2) identify proper training facilities and equipment (3) publicize and promote their talents and abilities, and ( 4) seek commercial endorsements and performance opp011unities. Each Beneficiary agrees not to enter into any agreement or arrangement relating to any boxing activity without the Petitioner's prior written consent. The document does not contain details relating to the Beneficiaries' remuneration; rather, they discuss the Petitioner's commission.

The Petitioner also provided two Bout Agreements, one for each Beneficiary, confirming that the promoter will compensate each one $500. Regarding the Beneficiaries· eligibility, the Petitioner offered their professional licenses, listing past bouts, photographs of medals and foreign language certificates with no translations, photographs of each Beneficiary with other boxers, an online medal result processed through Google Translate, a blog posting, and letters from a sports journalist. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner did not submit the necessary itinerary, properly translated evidence of the Beneficiaries· eligibility, and corroboration that the events require internationally recognized athletes. Finally. the provision that allows a petitioner to file one petition for multiple beneficiaries does not permit a single filing for both boxers because they are not members of a group seeking admission based on the group· s reputation or for one to provide essential support to the other. 8 C.F.R. ~ 21.42(p)(2)(iv)(F)

A. Itinerary

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(l)(ii)(A)(I) provides that a P-1 classification applies to a foreign national who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform at a specific athletic competition as an athlete, individually or as part of a group or team. at an internationally recognized level ofperformance. For clarification, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(3) defines the following terms:

1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(p)(2)(iv)(E) allows an agent to file a petition in the three scenarios discussed below.

2

.

Matter of 1-F-M-, LLC

Competition, event or performance means an activity such as an athletic competition, athletic season, tournament, tour, exhibit, project, entertainment event, or engagement. Such activity could include short vacations, promotional appearances for the petitioning employer relating to the competition, event, or performance. and stopovers which are incidental and/or related to the activity. An athletic competition or entertainment event could include an entire season of performances. A group of related activities will also be considered an event. In the case of a P-2 petition, the event may be the duration of the reciprocal exchange agreement. In the case of a P-1 athlete, the event may be the duration ofthe alien's contract.

The Director concluded that the benefit sought required an itinerary, quoting the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(2)(ii)(C). That provision lists the general evidentiary requirements for this visa classification. As the Petitioner notes on appeal, the relevant language in that provision requires submission of "any'' itinerary. The appeal brief contends that the use of the word "any" implies that the item is only mandatory if it exists. Executive Director of the

affirms that boxing bouts are scheduled one at a. time on a last-minute basis. Accordingly, the Petitioner maintains that it cannot provide an itinerary and that requiring such a document would deprive boxers of equal protection.

As discussed above, the Petitioner is acting as the agent of the two Beneficiaries. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(2)(iv)(E)(i)-(iii) describes three types of agents: (1) those performing the function of an employer, (2) a person or company in business as an agent representing multiple employers and the beneficiaries, and (3) an entity serving a foreign employer. While the Advisory Contract does not address the Beneficiaries' compensation, it does give the Petitioner considerable control over their work and requires that they use its services almost exclusively. The latter factors suggest that the Petitioner will be functioning as the employer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p )(2)(iv)(E)(i) explicitly says that such a petitioner "must also provide an itinerary of definite employment and information on any other services planned for the period of time requested." We acknowledge that the Petitioner has also implied it will act as an agent for both the Beneficiaries and multiple promoter employers, one of which is Even if we analyzed the issue under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(2)(iv)(E)(ii). however. an itinerary is required. That provision allows such an agent to file a petition "if the supporting documentation includes a complete itinerary of services or engagement," the names of the actual employers, and the names of the venues or locations. These regulations specific to agent-tiled petitions require an itinerary in either case.

The position that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cannot enforce the regulation for boxers is not persuasive. The Petitioner is seeking five-year P status for each Beneficiary on the basis of a single bout commitment. The P classification, however, is not intended to allow beneficiaries to enter the United States to freelance or seek employment. 59 Fed. Reg. 41818. 41828 (Aug. 15 1994). While we recognize that boxing bouts may generally not be scheduled years in advance, the relevant regulation allows agents to file visa petitions for boxers for a period during which it has secured bouts and can produce an itinerary. A single bout cannot support a request for a

3

Matter of 1-F-M-, LLC

five-year petition as the remaining period after the bout would involve the Beneficiaries seeking employment through their agent. While we acknowledge that the definition of competition, event, or performance at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(3) can include a group of related activities, the premise that the Petitioner will be able to secure sufficient bouts over a five-year period is highly speculative.

Further, section 214(c)(4)(A)(ii)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(4)(A)(ii)(J), provides that the foreign national must seek to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of performing as such an athlete with respect to a specific athletic competition. According to the Advisory Contract, the Petitioner will also attempt to secure employment for the Beneficiaries as television or movie performers. Without an itinerary, the record does not confirm that such performances would be limited to promotional appearances incidental or related to the athletic activity as allowed under the definition of competition, event. or performance. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(3). The Petitioner has therefore not demonstrated that the Beneficiaries will solely perform as athletes during the five-year period.

Finally, the Petitioner's equal protection argument is not a basis whereby we can waive a regulatory requirement. The appellate brief contends that enforcement of the regulation unfairly denies this visa classification to boxers. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the typical means of scheduling bouts precludes any boxer from qualifying for the classification; rather it reveals the difficulty in securing the benefit sought over a period of several years. Regardless, we lack jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress or of regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security. See, e.g, Matter ol Fuentes-Campos, 21 I&N Dec. 905, 912 (BIA 1997); Matter (~l C-, 20 I&N Dec. 529, 532 (BIA 1992). For the reasons discussed above, the regulatory requirements for agent-filed petitions include an itinerary.

B. Professional Athlete or International Recognition

The Petitioner previously affirmed that the Beneficiaries are professional athletes because they were recently licensed. The definition of professional athlete in the context of this classification, however, is limited to athletes employed by a team that is a member of an association of six or more professional teams or certain minor league teams. As boxing is not a team sport, the Beneficiaries cannot meet the professional athlete definition. Rather, they must satisfy the requirements for international recognition. The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(4)(i)(A) states:

P -1 class!fication as an athlete in an individual capacity. A P-1 classification may be granted to an alien who is an internationally recognized athlete based on his or her own reputation and achievements as an individual. The alien must be coming to the United States to perform services which require an internationally recognized athlete.

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(3) defines internationally recognized as '·having a high level of achievement in a field evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered, to the extent that such achievement is renowned, leading, or well-known in more than one country."

4

.

Matter of 1-F-M-, LLC

Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(4)(ii)(B)(2) explains that a petitioner must satisfy at least two evidentiary criteria to show a beneficiary's international recognition. With respect to these criteria, we have held that, "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). That decision clarifies that. pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, we "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." !d.

1. Criteria.

The record contains documents relating to the criteria we discuss below.

Evidence of having participated in international competition with a § 214.2(p)(4)(ii)(B)(2)(ii).

8 C.F.R.

The Petitioner submitted photographs of each Beneficiary with other boxers, but does not establish that these photographs picture a An article processed through Google Translate reflects that one Beneficiary received a silver medal at an international competition in Google Translate does not comply with the requirement for a certified translation of all foreign language documents at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) and we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material supports the Petitioner's claims. Furthermore, the article does not mention a

Materials from a blog on the website com affirm that the other Beneficiary was a member of the The record does not demonstrate the reliability of this blog or contain evidence that the team is a Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion for either Beneficiary.

A written statementfrom a member (~[the sports media or a recognized expert in the sport which details how the alien or team is internationally recognized. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p )(4 )(ii)(B)(2)(v).

The record contains two letters from a professional boxing journalist. He affirms that both boxers have competed in hundreds of amateur bouts including international ones as a member of the or a He characterizes one Beneficiary as a tive-time

and the other as having achieved that status twice. While these letters meet the requirements of this criterion, the record does not corroborate either Beneficiary's

membership or championship. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126. 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (concluding that USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated statements from practitioners in the field was not arbitrary and capricious).

5

.

Malter ofl-F-M-, LLC

Evidence that the alien or team has received a sign{ficant honor or award in the .sport. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(4)(ii)(B)(2)(vii).

The Petitioner submitted several award certificates and photographs of medals for each Beneficiary. Almost all of the certificates are in a foreign language. The Petitioner did not attach translations as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Similarly, the Google translation for the article about one of the Beneficiaries ' silver medal at an international competition is not certified as required. !d. Finally, the Petitioner did not document that any of these awards are significant in the field of boxing as required. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion for either Beneficiary.

2. Summary

We acknowledge the letters from While not without value, the Petitioner did not support the letters with sufficient evidence of the Beneficiaries' accomplishments. S'ee Visinscaia. 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. As discussed above, the record contains only one translation and that one is not certified as required. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The record also lacks sufficient corroboration of the significance of the Beneficiaries' awards, such as media coverage. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not meet its burden of proof in verifying that the Beneficiaries are internationally recognized athletes.

C. Events

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(l)(ii)(A)(/) requires that the athlete is coming temporarily to the United States to perform at an internationally recognized level of performance. The record contains no information about the bouts that the Petitioner has arranged for each Beneficiary. Accordingly, the record does not establish that they are coming to perform at the necessary level.

D. Multiple Beneficiaries

As discussed, the Petitioner lists two Beneficiaries on the petition. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 21.42(p )(2)(iv)(F) provides:

More than one beneficiary may be included in a P petition if they are members of a group seeking classification based on the reputation of the group as an entity, or if they will provide essential support to P-1 , P-2, or P-3 beneficiaries performing in the same location and in the same occupation.

As notes on appeal, boxing is an individual sport with no team competitions. The record contains no evidence that the Beneficiaries are members of a group or that the Petitioner is seeking classification based on the reputation of that group as an entity. The record does not demonstrate that either Beneficiary will provide essential support to the other. Accordingly. the petition cannot support both Beneficiaries.

Matter of 1-F-M-, LLC

III. CONCLUSION

The Petitioner did not provide an itinerary as required or document that the Beneficiaries are internationally recognized coming to perform at the requisite level. It also incorrectly included two unrelated Beneficiaries on the same petition.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter ofl-F-M-. LLC, ID# 677557 (AAO Nov. 13, 2017)