Real-World Applications: Enmanuel, Poa, and What They Actually Mean

Two matters have attracted significant attention in the NIL immigration space: the reported O-1A approval of Hansel Enmanuel and the ongoing federal litigation in Poa v. Jaddou. Both are instructive. Neither is a safe harbor.

Hansel Enmanuel's reported O-1A approval demonstrates that USCIS may recognize a collegiate athlete's athletic achievements, media profile, social reach, and commercial NIL value as evidence supporting extraordinary ability. However, his approval was an individual, nonpublic USCIS adjudication — not a published court opinion or binding agency precedent. A new applicant may present Enmanuel as an analogous example, but USCIS is not required to approve another athlete merely because the facts appear similar.

The controlling authority remains the O-1A statute, regulations, and USCIS Policy Manual. The petition must establish either a major internationally recognized award or evidence satisfying at least three regulatory criteria, followed by a totality-of-the-evidence determination that the athlete has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of the field.

For a student-athlete, the strongest O-1A evidence ordinarily includes:

• National or international athletic awards and honors
• Published media coverage specifically about the athlete (not just general team coverage)
• Membership or selection for elite national teams or competitions
• International or national rankings
• A leading or critical role on a distinguished team
• High compensation, endorsement value, or unusually valuable NIL agreements
• Expert letters explaining the athlete's reputation and competitive standing
• Comparable evidence when the standard criteria do not readily apply to collegiate athletics

A note on social media reach: Follower counts alone are weak evidence. Social-media reach is more effective when connected to independent press coverage, verified engagement data, sponsorship offers, market valuations, major-brand interest, and evidence that the attention resulted from the athlete's accomplishments — not the other way around.

Reference him in the introductory legal discussion as evidence that the O-1A classification has previously been used for an international collegiate athlete pursuing NIL activities. Describe it as an analogous reported approval — not as precedent. The petition must then independently prove:

1. The athlete's extraordinary ability in athletics
2. Sustained national or international acclaim
3. That the proposed NIL work arises from and remains within the athlete's area of extraordinary ability
4. Definite employment or engagements during the requested period
5. That all proposed employers, sponsors, appearances, and services are properly covered by the petition

A U.S. employer or U.S. agent must file Form I-129. An agent may petition for an athlete who will perform services for several sponsors, but the filing should include contracts or deal terms, an itinerary, dates, locations, participating companies, compensation terms, and the services the athlete will perform.

The legal brief should expressly connect the NIL work to the athlete's expertise:

That connection matters. A petition based on athletic acclaim but seeking authorization for unrelated entertainment, modeling, or generic social-media work may face an evidentiary challenge.

Poa v. Jaddou challenges USCIS's denial of P-1A classification for an NCAA athlete. The case is significant because it contests the position that an NCAA athlete cannot satisfy the P-1A requirements merely because the athlete participates in collegiate rather than professional competition. In September 2025, the federal district court denied the government's motion to dismiss and allowed judicial review to continue.

That ruling was procedural. It did not:

• Approve Poa's P-1A petition
• Hold that NCAA athletes automatically qualify for P-1A status
• Authorize all international athletes to perform NIL services
• Create binding nationwide precedent

As of July 2026, the docket reflects a new government motion seeking dismissal based on mootness, together with Poa's response. The litigation remains unsettled. A more accurate description of the case's current posture:

The case is most useful in a P-1A legal argument responding to a categorical objection that an NCAA athlete is merely an amateur or student and therefore cannot qualify. The governing standard is not whether the athlete is labeled "professional." The question is whether:

• The athlete is internationally recognized
• The athlete will participate in a specific athletic competition
• The competition has a distinguished reputation
• The competition requires athletes of internationally recognized caliber

USCIS expressly recognizes individual P-1A athletes and evaluates the reputation of the athlete, the competition, and the level of performance required.

For NCAA competition, the evidentiary record should include:

• National and international television viewership and media coverage
• Conference and NCAA competitive rankings
• International players participating in the conference or championship
• National-team members and future professional athletes in the competition
• Recruiting standards and selectivity
• Statements from governing-body officials, coaches, former professional athletes, and recognized sports journalists
• The athlete's participation in national-team or international competition
• International rankings, major awards, championships, and significant collegiate participation

The goal is to prove not merely that NCAA basketball (or any sport) is popular, but that the specific conference, schedule, tournament, or championship has a distinguished reputation and requires internationally recognized athletic performance.

O-1A is generally the stronger NIL vehicle when the athlete has an unusually prominent individual profile. It is better suited to a structured portfolio involving multiple endorsement companies, appearances, content productions, camps, sponsorships, and licensing arrangements. The evidentiary threshold is higher, but the proposed activities can be framed more naturally as continued work arising from the athlete's extraordinary ability.

P-1A may be appropriate when the athlete has strong international competitive credentials but cannot yet establish the higher O-1A extraordinary-ability standard. However, P-1A is more closely tied to participation in specific athletic competition, and the petition must carefully establish why the collegiate competition satisfies the statutory standard.

For either classification, the athlete should not begin compensated appearances, sponsored posts, promotional services, autograph sessions, camps, or other active NIL work until the appropriate petition and change of status become effective. Approval is also limited to the petitioner, employers, activities, and engagements covered by the petition.

Build the petition around the governing USCIS criteria. Use Enmanuel as an analogous approval and Poa as a developing legal argument, but do not characterize either matter as a binding NIL safe harbor.

The athletes who navigate this correctly are the ones who build the right team before the deal is signed: immigration counsel who understands NIL, a CPA who understands both international tax and athlete compensation, and a university compliance office that knows when to refer out.

We work with international athletes, their families, and their representatives at the intersection of immigration compliance and tax strategy. Our practice covers:

• Substantial Presence Test analysis and residency determination
• Treaty benefit identification and Form 8833 filing
• Withholding compliance for NIL payors working with international athletes
• FBAR and FATCA reporting for athletes with foreign financial accounts
• Coordination with immigration counsel on petition scope and amendment strategy
• Multi-state filing for athletes competing across state lines

Schedule a consultation before the deal is signed — not after.

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Immigration law questions should be directed to qualified immigration counsel. Tax questions should be directed to a licensed CPA or tax attorney familiar with international athlete compensation.