Our 2020 Experience with USCIS
2020 was the most successful year in the history of our Law Firm. We were able to make tremendous progress in preparing the best non-immigrant visa petitions for combat sports athletes in the nation. We were also on the frontlines with solving problems for consular issues such as obtaining Presidential Sports Exemptions for our clients.
Nonetheless, this year could have been even better with more effective performance from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). This year was marred with issues dealing with this government agency and we are compelled to share our experiences. Transparency is key, and below please find a list of situations with USCIS that affected our clients.
Every single case submitted for Top Rank Boxing has incurred a Request for Evidence (RFE). These petitions are for World Champions and Olympians. Often these RFEs ask for information that was already included and clearly articulated in the original petition. This is a major deal because of the millions of dollars sometimes invested in short notice bouts. We are interested to know how all of these cases are getting RFEs. Are they all going to the same officer?
Example Petitions are below:
2. We have experienced numerous issues with using the fax to respond to requests for evidence. Either the faxes are not accepted, or, they are not received in their entirety. At best, this causes a delay in adjudication and at worst has resulted in the denial of cases because USCIS was inflexible in understanding the mistake. USCIS officers have the option to issue an intent to deny when this happens but often have chosen not to do so.
A few examples:
a. We had the Ultimate Fighting Championships and Senator Thom Tillus’ Office intercede in this situation:
First Round Management responded to a request for evidence on June 9th. The counsel for First Round Management noticed that there might have been an error with the fax transmission. The counsel followed up with USCIS by fax, email, and phone call to alert USCIS of the issue and get reassurance that the fax was received properly. The reassurance came in the form of an email acknowledgement explaining that an email with the response attached was forwarded to the adjudicating officer and that a response would not be updated in the files if there was an issue with the incoming fax, such as the response not being included with the fax.
First Round Management relied on the assurances only to find out on June 17th that the the adjudicating officer had issued a Notice of Intent to Deny stating that no additional evidence was included with the response to the request for evidence.
USCIS erred by accepting and/or acknowledging receipt of the response to the request for evidence on June 9th, 2020, and allowing eight days to pass before alerting First Round Management that there was an error with the response.
b. We experienced a serious delay in getting adjudication on a petition for the most popular boxer in the World trying to respond to a request for evidence that asked for evidence already included in the original petition. We had to try by fax and mail numerous times to get USCIS to acknowledge receipt of the response.
We then experienced a series of failed attempts to get USCIS to acknowledge our response where we provided this letter. We had direct emails/calls with USCIS, multiple faxes, inquiry to the USCIS Ombudsman, and request to our Senator’s Office for this case.
c. Gold Medalist Boxer with Top Rank - WACXXXXXXXXXX. The full fax response to the request for evidence did not fully get transferred to the adjudicating officer. The response was clearly not complete. The officer could have issued an intent to deny but instead just denied the case.
d. EACXXXXXXXXXX - We faced many issues getting USCIS to recognize our original petition and our response to the request for evidence. We experienced issues with this case in both service centers as we originally filed in CSC and refiled in EAC (because they adjudicate cases differently, which is also an issue). Some of these responses were over 400 pages.
e. The Case of the Twins
Early this year we, Sherrod Sports Visas, were able to successfully petition for two fighters based on an itinerary of competing for the UFC using an agency as the petitioner without issue. This is even before the fighters were officially signed to the UFC.
We then proceeded to petition for several more cases. In fact, we received four requests for evidence from both the California and Vermont Service Center making the same argument: ‘How can we approve a case based on a UFC itinerary when the beneficiary does not have any evidence of being scheduled for an MMA event?
We proceeded to prepare one of the most well thought out responses to a request for evidence in the history of our law firm. This was on behalf of our entire mixed martial arts immigration practice because every case for a fighter not already signed in the UFC could be denied. We decided to respond to one brother’s case first and then apply for the second because he had more time left on his visitor visa status (both brothers were currently in the USA on B-1 visitor visas).
In the response to the first brother’s case, we included a copy of the second brother’s response as proof that this argument presented by USCIS is common. On the 15th day of processing the RFE, we received the approval notice for the first brother’s change of status for a three-year P-1A visa. The very next day, counsel submitted a request for evidence for the second brother using the very same arguments used for his brother’s approval.
Expecting this adjudication of the second brother’s case to take two weeks, counsel went about his business of filing new P-1A cases for more mixed martial artists hoping to compete in the UFC. Then counsel received a denial letter for the second brother. This was frustrating and we started to prepare our clients for a conversation about an appeal or litigation. Filing a new case would have been a steep endeavor because the filing fees had just gone up to almost three thousand dollars overnight.
However, counsel noticed that the case was denied on the same day that his twin brother’s case was approved. We had not even sent a response to the second brother’s case at that time.
USCIS had taken the second brother’s request for evidence file out of his brother’s response and adjudicated it as its response!
This was even more upsetting than the denial itself. The cover letter for the file clearly explained that the response for evidence was included for Khasan’s case. Khasan’s receipt number was on the cover letter, and we know the officer looked at the cover letter because of information mentioned in the denial letter.
We immediately sent an email to the California Service Center to ask how on earth did an adjudicating officer pull part of our argument on another case out of our filing and choose to adjudicate it? The officer could have chosen to send an intent to deny the case but chose not to go that route. Our email to the California Service Center included shipping information on our responses, copies of both responses, and a demand for the case to be reopened.
Fortunately, our request was granted after the tremendous service of Officer Andrew at CSC who pulled the files and was able to get the case approved based on the information we sent after Khusein’s case was denied.
3. Premium Processing Service not sending faxes of request for evidence.
Premium Processing is chosen to save time. One of the primary benefits of using the $2500 premium processing feature is to get immediate fax so we can get started preparing the response instead of waiting days for the hard copy. However, USCIS has not sent us the faxes of the requests for evidence several times which caused serious delays on these time sensitive cases.
4. Vermont Service Center (VSC) is flatout not giving cases the proper dates when they receive them and refuses to acknowledge proof of delivery and also loses files. There are numerous instances where we mailed case information to VSC and emailed proof of delivery only to be ignored. They also applied receipt dates later than when the file was accepted, without explanation.
5. California Service Center (CSC) has also lost mailing files.
6. Lack of transparency and consistency for providing adjudication numbers.
Earlier this year we were told by CSC that responses to requests for evidence and denial letters are supposed to include the Officer Number of the person who did the case.
a. Here is what we were told originally by CSC
Good Afternoon,
As indicated on the bottom of the RFE for WACXXXXXXXXXX the officer number is XG-XXXX. The officer number is normally provided at the bottom of a Request for Evidence and Notice of Denial, but not always due to a glitch in our system. However, an Officer Number is never included on a Notice of Approval.
As such, if you wish to obtain any additional information about the Approved petition in question, please submit an official FOIA request.
Officer Morrison, Premium Processing Unit
b. This is what we were told by the Vermont Service Center:
VSC told us that it was not permissible to provide officers’ names and numbers.
c. After months of receiving inconsistent responses on Adjudicator numbers, CSC told us that we need to submit a FOIA request to obtain the Adjudicating Officer’s number, I was very surprised by this and asked if this was a new policy and my inquiry was not addressed. The officer copy and pasted the same response to me.
7. FOIA Request
a. We are already very active in requesting FOIA for information on Adjudication Officers. To date, we have not received anything back from any of these requests. We have no idea how long they are supposed to take and are therefore not effective. FOIA requests are the primary tool we can use to make sure that our petitions are being treated fairly.
Here are our submitted FOIA Requests:
This is our oldest submission and we are yet to receive a response.
We also have a FOIA request with CBP for a list of the organizations on the Presidential Exemptions list from when they gave me a month long run around on being able to submit a petition for Top Rank. We still do not have this information back from CBP. The due date given by CBP was 10/06 and we still have nothing.
8. EAD and Case Rejections for I-140, I-485 cases
Every single I-485 case has been rejected for a filing fee issue. All of these files were submitted with the proper $1225 filing fees. We only find out about the rejection notice 3 months after sending the files to USCIS and then have to wait another 3 months after this to get benefits such as advance parole and EAD work authorization.
We are not by far the only ones to experience this issue with USCIS. This can be devastating to the client who cannot work until the EAD is approved and are really distraught with us thinking that we did something wrong.
a. Example: Championship Boxer - EB-1A I-140 and I-485
The main thing for the Championship Boxer is they asked for a filing fee for the I-765 which is already included in the $1225 filing fee paid to them when the case was filed on August 26, 2020, prior to any filing fees changing. Their rejection indicates they returned it because "the filing fee was incorrect". They returned both the boxer's and his spouse's I-765s.
9. USCIS Officers routinely do not understand their own regulations when it comes to AGENT BASED Petitions and fundamentally misunderstand our combat sports work. Even after careful explanation from us. We are always getting requests for evidence on this issue and even some denials. This is a big enough deal for us that we will probably go to litigation with USCIS to make sure they give us consistent results.
a. We are getting requests for evidence saying that the address of the Athlete’s management does not appear to be a place where competitions can be held.
These two have the exact same language but they would not give an adjudication number.
We have dozens of P-1A petitions with the same format and structure wise, it works every time. We also prepare applications that are submitted for other attorneys and these petitions do not get requests for evidence. I am starting to wonder if a certain or group of Adjudicating Officers get petitions from our office and choose to do things like this.
11. Inconsistent Adjudication for Agent Petitions regarding international events.
The regulation says that there needs to be events that require the participation of international athletes. We provide this every time for each of our petitions. However, recently, USCIS is asking for athletes to appear on websites/reports for the duration of the visa petition. Which is not only not required anywhere in the regulations, but it's impossible in combat sports. There is no way that a fighter can know who or when they are fighting over the course of 3 years.
Furthermore, there are only a few sports in the world that actually post schedules for the year, and list the names of the people that are going to participate in those events for years to come.
What USCIS is asking us to do is impossible. The regulations just say that there needs to be an itinerary of events that require the participation of International Athletes. They do not say that the athlete has to show internet posts listing them being in the event. This is causing enough problems and headaches that one of my clients is getting ready to sue USCIS in Federal Court. This is ridiculous.
At issue is the requirement of a Relationship between the Petitioner/beneficiary and the event that requires the participation of internationally recognized athletes, when the Petitioner is a US Agent functioning as a direct employer, and the events which require the participation of internationally recognized athletes.
The Regulations are as follows:
All petitions seeking P nonimmigrant classification require a description of the competition, event, or performance in which the group will participate. A competition, event, or performance may include an athletic competition, athletic season, tournament, tour, exhibit, project, entertainment event, or engagement.
THERE IS NO WHERE IN THE REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING:
P-1 Engagement
Engagement including activities that require the participation of international athletes
A relationship between the engagement and the dates/locations/venue/event organizer/broadcast partner/etc
an find this requirement anywhere in the regulations or internal memos from USCIS
As a reminder. “USCIS may not unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations.” Kazarian v. uscis 596 f.3d 1115 at 1122
What USCIS is asking for cannot possibly be true. In almost every sport, the agent and the athlete do not have a “relationship” with the international events they compete in.
Let's break with a very simple example.
A Track Athlete on P-1A
Track Meets and USA Track & Field do not apply for P-1A visas for Track Athletes.
Agents of Track Athletes do apply for P-1A for track athletes all the time with great success.
Agents and Track Athletes do not have a relationship with the Track Meet.
P-1 is approved just fine.
So that means, the relationship between the Agent and the Event that requires the participation of international athletes CANNOT BE PART OF THE REGULATIONS for obtaining a P-1 Visa.
Cases denied for this reason include:
Here are the explanations we provide to USCIS for athletes that are going to compete in the UFC and other world class promotions.
This explanation is coming from the perspective of a response from the client:
The law firm we engaged for this petition did a P-1 visa petition for X with First Round Management who was approved 8/19 and now behold, now he is competing in the UFC on October 10, 2020. The law firm we engaged in did a P-1 visa for Y with MMA Factory America, who was approved on 10/2, and competed for UFC on October 10, 2020. The law firm we engaged did a P-1 for Z with first round management that was approved on October 7, 2020 and is listed on the UFC website as a Top Ten Heavyweight in the World.
The law office maintains an excellent relationship with the UFC Global Mobility Department which told us that they can use and market fighters when they have P-1 visas and are set to go with National Interest Waivers to come into the United States. Multiple emails to confirm this along with our relationship of obtaining P-1 visas for fighters in coaches competing in the UFC is included with this petition. Some of these petitions are from First Round Management and others from different respected talent agencies.
We also have another petition for a MMA fighter from MMA Factory America, LLC that had the same information included with UFC competitions is approved and in the UFC. Evidence is included with this petition
Receipt Number: EACXXXXXXXXXX
Date I-907 Received: 09/28/2020
Date Approved: 10/2/2020 10:57:10 AM
Petitioner: MMA FACTORY AMERICA LLC
Petitioner Mailing Address:
8200 WISCONSIN AVE STE 1216
BETHESDA
MD, 20814
Number of Workers: 1
Classification: P1A
Beneficiary: X
Beneficiary Country of Citizenship: FRANCE
Classification sought: P1A
Starting Validity Date: 10/15/2020
Ending Validity Date: 10/14/2023
Consulate notified (if applicable): PARIS
I-94 # (if applicable):
POE:
Occupation/Job Code: 140
All of these situations serve as proof that a contract with the UFC does not have to be provided for the approval of a P-1 visa with the athlete or coach. The athlete’s engagement is with the management company that is serving as an agent petition. The engagement includes an itinerary of events that require the participation of athletes with international recognition, the Ultimate Fighting Championships.
PLEASE REMEMBER
8 CFR $ 214.2(p)(2)(ii) requires all petitions for P classification to be accompanied by:
(C) 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;
USCIS has already conceded that “The record shows that UFC Competitions are distinguished and require the participation of an athlete or athletic team that has an international reputation”
In your request for evidence you asked for the following information:
Evidence of bouts in which the beneficiary will compete
Evidence of bouts which the beneficiary is matched against other similar opponents
This is absolutely not required and we can explain this a few ways. We have noticed this misconception comes up often with Adjudicating Officers.
WACXXXXXXXXXX - P-1A First Round Management
And also the following instance, to which we followed up with the explanation below and was approved on October 15, 2020.
Receipt Number: WACXXXXXXXXXX
Date I-907 Received: 09/17/2020
Date Approved: 10/15/2020 10:54:58 AM
Petitioner: FIRST ROUND MANAGEMENT LLC
Petitioner Mailing Address: 7340 SW 48 ST STE 108B
MIAMI
FL, 33155
Number of Workers: 1
Classification: P1A
Beneficiary: X
Beneficiary Country of Citizenship:
Classification sought: P1A
Starting Validity Date: 10/15/2020
Ending Validity Date: 09/23/2023
Consulate notified (if applicable):
I-94 # (if applicable): X
REASON #1 This is not required anywhere in the regulations
PLEASE REMEMBER
“USCIS may not unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations.” Kazarian v. USCIS 596 f.3d 1115 at 1122
If the Adjudication officer thinks that lack of the beneficiaries name appearing on bout sheets on the internet causes doubt on whether they are coming to the United States to compete in competitions with the UFC; we would like to remind USCIS of the Standard of Evidence of Preponderance for these kinds of Petitions. Also, here are the regulations on if there is doubt:
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is “probably true” or “more likely than not,” the applicant has satisfied the standard of proof. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm. 1989), followed. (Emphasis supplied.)
The standard of proof as articulated in the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (“AFM”), at Chapter 11.1(c), mirrors that set forth in Matter of Chawathe:
The standard of proof applied in most administrative immigration proceedings is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Thus, even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is “probably true” or “more likely than not,” the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the standard of proof. See U.S. v. Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (defining “more likely than not” as a greater than 50 percent probability of something occurring).
Here is a list of the relevant, probative, and credible evidence that we have already provided and new evidence included with this petition
The petitioner/foreign agent is one of the leading management companies of mixed martial artists in the World with clients already competing in the UFC.
The ranking of the beneficiary and the rankings of athletes at their skill level that show that these athletes are from all over the world.
We have included evidence of our relationship with the UFC with this petition. This shows that a MMA Factory Fighter was approved for a P-1A visa and then listed for a bout with the UFC. Corporation from the UFC that fighters with P-1A approvals and NIE can be used for the bouts. Information from another athlete we secured a P-1A visa for and subsequently was listed for a bout with the UFC.
The dangers and deaths that could occur when there are mixed matched skill sets in these competitions. Which means that these UFC competitions would need persons with the profile of the beneficiary to be approved by State Athletic Commissions and safely occur.
We have included an official bout listing of the UFC broadcast partner ESPN, showing events as soon as a month and a half from now barely have ANY bouts listed on the website. This is because of the explanations offered by the Petitioner, who remember, is one of the leading mixed martial arts management companies in the World.
Due to liability concerns and contractual obligations with promotional partners and their broadcast partners, exact dates this far in the future are not publicized and subject to change due to injuries and other unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, there is little or no public media for events until it is close to the time to market the event. There are many lawsuits in combat sports between promoters, fighters, broadcast partners, and more. It is a liability concern to have future bouts publicly available on the internet with proper work authorization for foreign talent is not secured.
We have also included a screenshot of the UFC event website that only shows events about two months into the future.
REASON #2 We know for sure and by a myriad of Successful Experience with USCIS P-1A applications that these are not part of the requirements for athletes to be listed in events along with opponents.
This cannot be a true requirement because almost all sports do not have athletes listed for events and matched up with opponents. We offer the following examples of sports and P-1 approvals as evidence.
Barrel Racing - 3 year visa - WACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
MMA Coach - 1 year visa - WACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Swimmer - 3 year visa - WACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Boxer - 3 year visa - WACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Boxer - 3 year visa - WACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Short Track Racer - 3 year visa - WACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Short Track Racing - 3 year visa - WACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Boxing Coach - 1 year visa - EACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Boxer - 3 year visa - WACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Weightlifting - 3 year visa - WAC2006050889 - neither of the requirements needed
Boxing - 3 year visa - EACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Boxing - 3 year visa - WACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Boxing - 3 year visa - EACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Boxing Coach - 3 year visa - EACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Boxing - 3 year visa - EACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
Boxing - 3 year visa - WACXXXXXXXXXX - neither of the requirements needed
REASON #3 We know for sure and by Successful Experience with USCIS P-1A applications for mixed martial arts that are UFC related where Zuffa LLC dba UFC is the petitioner AND Agent Based Petitions where these are not part of the requirements for athletes to be listed in events along with opponents. It is customary that UFC related petitions receive validity dates for the length of their promotional contract. Just as we have a successful history of obtaining visas based on management/agent contracts without the information you requested.
Zuffa Petitioner - P-1A - WACXXXXXXXXXX - 1.5 years - neither of the requirements needed
Agent Petitioner - P-1S WACXXXXXXXXXX - 8 months - neither of the requirements needed
Zuffa Petitioner - P-1A WACXXXXXXXXXX - 1.5 years - neither of the requirements needed
Agent Petitioner - P-1A WACXXXXXXXXXX - 3 years - neither of the requirements needed
Agent Petitioner - P-1A WACXXXXXXXXXX - 3 years - neither of the requirements needed
All of these situations serve as proof that a contract and/or public internet postings with the UFC does not have to be provided for the approval of a P-1 visa with the athlete or coach. The athlete’s engagement is with the management company that is serving as an agent petition. The engagement includes an itinerary of events that require the participation of athletes with international recognition, the Ultimate Fighting Championships.
12. Indian Boxer
This case is for an Indian boxer for my Sports Agency.
This petition was sent in April 2019.
We received an RFE - and I responded on August 27, 2019.
Nothing happened. I sent a letter after 7 months of not hearing anything. And then, they sent me the exact same request for evidence.
I can tell they messed up and sent the same one because there is an error showing in the case history.
This latest response was sent in May 2020 and responded to in May 2020. AND THERE STILL is nothing.
The adjudicator’s number of course was not listed. But I want it very badly and feel that something should happen professionally to the Officer that is doing this. They are probably doing this to other cases and that is a shame.
13. USCIS ignoring evidence submitted with the petition and responses
USCIS ignored our evidence submitted with the petition and that resulted in a denial. We exhausted our resources to bring attention to this case and are now planning to issue a I-290B notice to reopen and reconsider.
From the Motion -
We tried to communicate with USCIS, reached out to the Ombudsman, and had a congressional inquiry on this matter by Senator Thom Tillus’ office.
If lost and was never considered, we are requesting that USCIS reopen and approve this case.
If the situation is that the evidence was considered and ignored by the Adjudicating Officer, we ask that USCIS reconsider and approve this case.
The evidence is simply an updated I-129A with the adjusted title of World Class Lacrosse Player and an explanation from the Petitioner explaining why a World Class Lacrosse Player is needed for this position.
In the request for evidence, the Adjudicating Officer explained that the beneficiary was a world class Lacrosse player by the evidence presented at the time of adjudication.
“He is without a doubt a world-class athlete”
The adjudicating officer made a great point, so we adjusted the title of the form I-129 to world class lacrosse player as the adjudicating officer said his evidence was that of a world class athlete. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted a letter of clarification explaining why they needed a world class athlete for this particular position.
None of this was addressed in the denial decision issued by the Adjudication Officer. We do not know if he saw this adjustment or not in the almost 500 page response we issued to the request for evidence.
A motion to reconsider is a request to the office that issued the unfavorable decision to review its decision based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The motion must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of that decision.
This evidence was included with the response to the request for evidence.
A motion to reopen is a request to the office that issued the unfavorable decision to review its decision based on new facts. The motion must state new facts and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence demonstrating your eligibility at the time you filed the underlying application or petition.
In case the file was lost, we are including this information in this motion along with the new evidence of all the correspondence we made to drive attention to the new I-129.
Here is a transcript of us explaining and trying to figure out if the file was lost. We had a very similar situation with CSC earlier this year that was automatically reopened w/o a motion filed by us and approved.
----- Begin Correspondence Sent by Email to USCIS --
Hey,
We just had another case where the same thing must have happened. We have a denial notice where some of our evidence must not have made it to the officer.
This denial says all the evidence was for lacrosse player. We sent a I-129 form with the job title World Class Lacrosse Player. did they lose it again? We put a lot of hard work into this petition and it seems that the entire basis of the response to the RFE was lost or ignored. And this is the second time this has happened to us.
we included the denial and our RFE response to this email. Here is a link to the RFE response in case the file is too big to open. It includes the mailing information in case the mailroom needs to be investigated again.
Also the file name for this decision is I-292 which appears to be for immigrant petitions. Is this adjudicating officer XF6074 new or new to form I-129?
Here is what happened to us last time, they went to investigate the mailroom and found out what we said happened was true. The case was reopened and approved.
14. Requests for Evidence
Requests for Evidence: The substance of recent requests for evidence are trending as incorrect and unnecessary. We have several examples of recent request for evidence from USCIS below:
World Champion Kickboxing Petition: The adjudicating officer argues that international world championships are national awards for the purpose of P-1. The issue with this is they are clearly not and national awards are perfectly acceptable for P-1 awards as long as they are INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED.
Our response was as below:
National awards are sufficient under the regulations for P-1, O-1, and even EB-1A 2. In their event names, international coverage, international participation, international purpose, it is difficult to understand how these can be considered national awards. Especially considering that these awards TOOK PLACE all over the world. Thus, if the adjudicator is trying to argue that these are national awards, but these awards were acquired in different countries, that would make the beneficiary known for receiving national awards in multiple countries.
The awards have to be “internationally recognized” (see the plain language of the regulations), which is not the same as an award at an international level. For example, a Heisman would be an award at a national level that is internationally recognized. As stated by the federal court in Buleteni v INS, [860 F.Supp. 1222 (1994)]: “Moreover, the INS’s own regulation states that an alien may present evidence of “the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards … Thus, the award need not have significance outside of one country. National recognition is sufficient.”
These are international WAKO events at the very top-tier echelon of the sport of kickboxing.
Gold Medalist Boxer: O-1 Petition. The adjudicating officer argues that since the boxing event was not on the Internet, the petition could not be approved and referred to a list of non-sanctioned events. The issue with this is that O-1A petitions do not require a series of competitions such as a P-1 petition. In addition, we carefully explained that promoters cannot responsibly promote fights for athletes who do not have the authorization to compete yet. The non-sanctioned bouts were explained to be sparring sessions at a gym, which of course do not appear on any Internet search. We refer to sparring as non-sanctioned bouts because USCIS looks unfavorably on the use of the word “practice.” To make it worse, they had just approved a boxer for O-1A with the exact same itinerary just two days before this request for evidence.
Our response was as below:
We do not have to show you that he has a bout that is publicly available on the Internet. There are a number of reasons why:
There are no regulations that require this for O-1A visas. “USCIS may not unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations.” 11 kazarian v. uscis 596 f.3d 1115 at 1122.
His engagement is a promotional contract with XXXXXX. As a direct employer, itineraries are generally not necessary, but we provided an explanation of activities anyway.
C) 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; 8 CFR 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C)
Also note: Pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(D), in the case of a petition filed for an artist or entertainer, a petitioner may add additional performances or engagements during the validity period of the petition without filing an amended petition, provided the additional performances or engagements require an alien of O-1 caliber.
His consent to oral agreements and promotional contracts outlines his engagement, which is a promotional contract with xxxxx that includes training and doing media at xxxxxxx. This beneficiary has the same arrangement as xxxxxxx with xxxxxxxx, which was JUST APPROVED by USCIS a few days ago.
Receipt Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date I-907 Received: 07/07/2020
Date Approved: 8/3/2020 11:39:52 AM
Number of Workers: 1
Classification: O1A
Beneficiary: xxxxxxxx
Beneficiary Country of Citizenship: UNITED KINGDOM
Classification sought: xxxxxxxx
Starting Validity Date: 08/03/2020
Ending Validity Date: 06/30/2023
Consulate notified (if applicable): LONDON
It is completely irresponsible for promoters at this level with millions of dollars on the line to publicly promote events for athletes who do not have the work authorization to participate in the event. COVID-19 has made it very difficult to get dates with broadcasters that expect to know what they are showing when they pick the events. Due to these limited spots, the cards must be set before saying anything publicly. Lawsuits happen all the time in boxing at the world championship level due to fighters not being able to make it to the fight. Explanation, which is the same as the explanation of xxxxxxxx and that was approved, is included with this petition.
Top 20 Ranked Boxer P-1A Petition: The adjudication officer sent a request for evidence only requesting a consultation letter. The issue is that we already provided evidence that we requested one and it was not responded to by the time we sent the petition. We have done this exact same approach over 30 times with no issues. This delay almost caused the boxer to miss the fight, but we were able to get him in the country under P-1A with a creative solution in Canada.
In our response we reminded USCIS that we told them there was no consultation letter available yet, provided proof of previous approvals in this situation, and gave them the letter that was now available.
15. USCIS California Service Center is failing to provide email notification of approval
We now have several instances where USCIS did not issue the approval notice electronically under premium processing. This is particularly a problem when we are relying on the approval notice on email to get things done quickly for high-end clients. The mailing notice can now take 10 days to come in which can be disastrous in certain situations.
For example, the UFC will not issue their 212(f) waiver without an indication of approval from USCIS. This means that they cannot expedite a visa interview, until they get a 212(f) waiver, which the UFC will not issue until they have either the physical approval or the electronic notice. I’ve sent emails about this, which are still unresolved after days of no response.
16. Finally, Adjudicating Officer XF0043-A is absolutely awful.
This officer has a lingering trail all over the country of issuing ridiculous decisions on combat sports cases. I do not want this officer near any petition related to Form I-129 and combat sports. This is not just from my cases, but other cases from great sports immigration lawyers.
Example A: From an Immigration Lawyer in San Diego
P-1 Athlete Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Athlete - Request for evidence
Request for more documents alleging that the US events are not requiring international level athletes, they did not accept media, stating that an article of the beneficiary is not under the statutory requirements. Further, they did not accept the experts statement stating that the athlete is intermediate skilled athlete, they did not accept governing body, they did not accept IBJJF Official ranking, stating that the level of the beneficiary is intermediate, they did not accept the significant award, affirming that she competes at an intermediate level.
Example B: I do not know the attorney, but a very high qualified fighter came to me with this denial from this same Officer
Example C: Top Rank Petition
This Officer issued a request for evidence on this petition for a consultation letter. We explained in the original petition letter that the request was not returned to us by the time we had to send the petition.
We then emailed them the letter and they acknowledged receipt of the consultation letter.
This was on October 30th.
On November 4th, I got a request for evidence asking for only this same consultation letter.
We responded the same day and then the officer took 15 days to approve the case after this. We had a tight window on this event and the officer knew it because we highlighted the date.
This is after I know that this officer has treated my petitions horribly in the past.
Receipt Number: WACXXXXXXXXXX
Date I-907 Received: 10/29/2020
Date Approved: 11/17/2020 2:15:19 PM
Petitioner: TOP RANK INC
Petitioner Mailing Address: 748 PILOT ROD
LAS VEGAS
NV, 89119
Number of Workers: 1
Classification: P1A
Beneficiary: X
Beneficiary Country of Citizenship: JAPAN
Classification sought: P1A
Starting Validity Date: 11/17/2020
Ending Validity Date: 11/10/2023
Consulate notified (if applicable): TOKYO
I-94 # (if applicable):
POE:
Occupation/Job Code: 140
Example D: Lets Get it On Promotions
In this petition - we presented a case for a boxer that was competing in the US and doing training camps (Which is permitted even under a B-1 visa). We said that some of his fights would be in the US and overseas.
Officer XF0043-A sends a request for evidence stating that he needs events in the US that require international athletes.
For one, we clarified that training is exhibition bouts with other dangerous fighters.
This athlete is already competing at the highest levels of international boxing competition. He has outgrown the domestic training partners in South Africa and requires better exposure against similarly skilled opponents to increase his skills for top results in his upcoming bouts and his exposure to American media.
Furthermore, athletes in the United States also need world class athletes to train with to continue improving their own skills. It is important for American fighters to have the opportunity to participate in Exhibitions and professional competitions against world class fighters from other countries to be their best.
We then also provided evidence that he will be competing in the United States, which the officer sees and then ignores the evidence and denies the case:
We have already issued a FOIA Request on this officer.
Regarding officer Number XF0043-A: We are requesting the following information for public knowledge of this public employee for a government agency.
How long has the adjudicating officer been employed or contracted by USCIS and/or DHS?
How much experience does the adjudicating officer have adjudicating cases in the visa category I-129P and I-129O?
How much experience does the adjudicating officer have in the industry/sport/job title being: Mixed Martial Arts and/ Professional Martial Artists, Boxing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu?
Documents related to any and all internal negative reviews, reprimands, reports, litigation and/or supervisory reviews of this officer.
We would like the number of I-129P applications related to Mixed Martial Arts and/ Professional Martial Artists, Boxing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu that were approved by officer XF0043-A.
We would like the number of I-129P applications related to Mixed Martial Arts and/ Professional Martial Artists, Boxing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu that were issued a request for evidence by officer XF0043-A.
We would like the number of I-129P applications related to Mixed Martial Arts and/ Professional Martial Artists, Boxing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu that were denied by officer XF0043-A.
What is the adjudicating officer's I -129 approval rate compared to the average adjudicating officer's I-129 approval rate?
We would like to know if any cases involving Officer XF043-A have been litigated, and if so, what were their outcomes.
What internal training has the officer completed regarding I-129 cases?