dismissed EB-1A Case: Rowing Coach

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 5061971 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 13, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a rowing coach, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability . See hnmigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in 
their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition and subsequent motion to reopen , 
concluding that the record did not establish that that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten 
initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence and asserts that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria, and that the record establishes his sustained national and international acclaim 
in his field . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education, business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien 's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
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 determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. 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 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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a rower that · ted with the I I national team and with the 
University of.__ ____ ----.----,-------' rowing team He also served as a coach with the 
I I Rowing Association ----1 and with thd I Rowing Association c=]. The 
Petitioner indicates, and the record reflects, that he intends to continue to work as a rowing coach in 
the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In his analysis, however, the Director discounted the documentary evidence relating to the Petitioner's 
career as a rower. We disagree with the Director's analysis on this issue, and will instead evaluate all 
evidence relating to the Petitioner's rowing achievements as both an athlete and a coach. 1 
1 We note that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) provides: 
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international acclaim as an athlete and has 
sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching/managing at a national level, adjudicators can consider the 
totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such 
that we can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of expertise. 
AFM chapter 22.22(i)(l)(C) (Emphasis in original) 
2 
In his decisions, the Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), those relating to service as a judge of the work of others and to performance in a 
leading or critical role, but did not meet the criterion relating to awards. 
The record contains race results and media coverage of the races, showing that the Petitioner was a 
crewmember in boats consisting of between two and eight rowers receiving medals at national and 
world championships. He also P,rovides documentation establishing the distinguished reputation of 
the I lnational team and thel I rowing team. Accordingly, we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner meets the criterion for leading or critical role. 
However, as discussed below, we do not find that the Petitioner meets the criterion for judging. This 
notwithstanding, we conclude that the Petitioner meets the requirements of two additional criteria, 
those for awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In denying the initial petition, the Director acknowledged the Beneficiary's receipt of multiple awards 
as a rower, as well as evidence showing that rowing teams that he coached were recipients of several 
awards. He discounted the former as the Beneficiary received them as an athlete, as opposed to his 
intended field of endeavor as a coach, and the latter because these awards were "limited to participants 
of these competitions." The Director also found that the record lacked evidence of media coverage or 
other materials demonstrating that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in the field of rowing. 
Here, as noted by the Director, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner received a silver medal 
at the 20061 I Rowing Championships, a bronze medal at the 2008 I I Rowing 
Championships. In addition, the record contains media articles published! lnewspapers about 
the Petitioner's success in these international competitions. The record farther reflects that the 
Petitioner won a bronze medal in the D at the 2014 '-----~-----------­
National Championship, the men'sl I championship. The Petitioner also provides articles 
about theD championship published online at usrowing.com 2 and in the San Francisco Chronicle. 
This is sufficient to show that he received nationally or internationally recognized awards for 
excellence in rowing. 
The record also contains documentation showing teams he has coached were recipients of bronze 
medals at the 2015 Regatta, a gold medal in theO in the 2017 and 2018 U.S. 
Rowin Championships, and gold medals in the D at the 201 71 I 
~-~ 
Regatta. However, the description of this type of evidence in the regulation provides that the 
focus should on the alien's receipt of the awards or prizes. 3 Thus, documentation of awards won by 
teams the Petitioner has coached is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets this criterion 
2 Usrowing.com is the website for US Rowing, the national governing body for rowing in the United States. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 
as a rowing coach. However, as we have concluded that the Petitioner meets this criterion as a rower, 
we will withdraw the Director's finding in this matter. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner was a member of the rowm national team 
competing at the 2005 and 20061 I Rowing Cham sand the~---~rowing 
national I I team competing at the 2007 and 2009 Rowing Championships. 4 
The Petitioner provides the selection plans for both the~_~national rowing team and the I I 
national rowing teams that show that the selection criteria for membership on these teams is based 
upon wins at a series of international competitions, surervised lby national experts. For example, the 
selection plan for the I I rowing national team requires a first or second place 
finish in 1 lrtegory"I on both days ofthegn-ternational Regatta, as well as a first place finish 
fo~ I in the category or a medal in a~--~btegory on the first day of thd.__ _ ___.bpen 
regatta, and a medal in al I category on the second day of thq I regatta. This evidence is 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied _field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner provided evidence sufficient to establish that he met this 
criterion. However, upon review we disagree with the Director's conclusion. As evidence that he has 
served as a judge of the work of others in the field of rowing, the Petitioner submits his nationjl rowingl 
umpire license from the I I Rdwingroundation I I He also provides a letter from 
I I secretary general of th confyming t
1
at the Petitioner served as a licensed national 
umpire for numerous regattas, such as the 2008 Rowing CupOand the 2008, and 2011-2014 
International Regatta I I Open. In a second letter. I I confirms, "[The Petitioner] 
took part in umpiring many state and regional regattas with great skill and focus on fair racing 
conditions." He describes the Petitioner's role in this capacity as overseeing "large numbers ofrowers, 
ensuring that they complied with race rules demonstrating great responsibility and further ensuring 
fair conditions for all." 
However, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires that the Petitioner provide evidence of 
his participation "either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others." Neither the 
umpiring license norl Is letters demonstrate how the Petitioner's role in ensuring 
rowers' compliance with race rules and in providing fair conditions for their races equates to 
evaluating or judging their work or skill as rowers. The record lacks other evidence, such as the 
4 
official rules for these regattas, establishing that umpiring these races requires judging the work of 
others, as opposed to enforcing the rules of a race and ensuring sportsmanlike conditions. Further, the 
Petitioner does not submit evidence demonstrating that he has served as a judge of the work of other 
coaches. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion, and we will 
withdraw the Director's finding to the contrary. 
While we have withdrawn the Director's finding regarding judging, we do find that the Petitioner has 
established that he fulfills at least three regulatory criteria and will evaluate the totality of the evidence 
in the context of the final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. 5 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The Petitioner indicates that he began his career as a rower in 2003, competing as a member of._l __ _. 
national team from 2004 until 2009, and on the.___-.-- __ ...,cr"""o-'-w'""i=n.,, team from 2011 through 2014. 
In 2015, the Petitioner served as the head coach in the class and assistant coach for the 
I I teams at I I In 2017, he joined the as coach for thel I teams and an 
assistant coach for th~ .... ---~~ team. 
Regarding his sustained acclaim as a rower, the record reflects that the Petitioner has consistently 
competed and garnered awards in rowing chamf onships, performing critical roles as a member of the 
I bational team and the highly regarded I team. For example, in addition to the 
awards discussed above, the Petitioner provides documentation showing that he placed third in the 
20081 I championships, and competed in the finals of the 2007._ _ __.~owing Championship 
and the 2007 I I Rowing Cup The record further reflects that he was recruite~ provided 
with a full athletic scholarshi to in 2011 where he competed on thel______J boat until 
2014. As a member of th rowing team, the record shows that the Petitioner won a 
bronze medal in the.__ ____ _.Championship. The Petitioner has therefore established that he 
garnered sustained national or international acclaim as an athlete through 2014, and was one of the 
few at the top of his field. 
However, the Petitioner indicates his intention to continue working in the United States as a rowing 
coach, not as a rower. Therefore, we must evaluate whether he has sustained his acclaim as an athlete 
into his career as a coach. Turning to the evidence regarding that aspect of his career, the record 
5 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 4 (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
5 
reflects that the Petitioner began his coaching career as a coach of thel l and continued his work 
as a coach for thee=] in 2017. During his tenure with then the I f team that he 
co-coached wit , head coach, placed third in the 201{ I Re?atta. The 
r------i-------' for whom he was head coach, Jlacel first at the U.S. Rowing L I 
L..- __ ....,......~==i=on==,ships. While he was a coach for th junior men's team, the record reflects 
that the teams won gold medals in four boat classes at the U.S. Rowing! I 
Championships. ~--~ 
With respect to the competitions attended and awards won by teams during the Petitioner's tenure as 
a coach, the record reflects that these were at a regional level, rather at the national and international 
levels in which the Petitioner demonstrated acclaim as an athlete. For example, as we discuss above, 
the record establishes the awards won by I I at the l J S I I 
Championships, and by the I I at the U.S I I Championships. 
However, the USRowing article indicates that there is an USRowing Youth Nationals Championship. 
The record does not show that members of thel I freshman team competed at these national 
championships. Similarly, an article in the Marin Inde endent Journal states that members of the 
.__ ________ __. boat competed at the Rowing Championships, but does not 
indicate whether the members of the.__ ___ ___, team that the Petitioner coached did so. Further, 
the record does not provide evidence showing that thee=] teams competed at either the national or 
international rowing championships. Overseeing teams whose members competed and won at the 
regional level, in contrast with the national and international competitions for which the Petitioner 
garnered acclaim as an athlete, does not support a conclusion that the Petitioner has sustained this 
acclaim as a coach, or was one at the top of his field. 
As it relates to the critical role that the Petitioner played in these outcomes, he submits numerous 
letters of recommendation.I I two-time Olympic gold medalist, notes the Petitioner's 
role atLJ in, "building the technical, physiological and psychological foundation fo~, 0 I 
athletes" where I I executive director and ~r I I states, "[h ]e is 
individually responsible for his athletes on a daily basis." notes that atl I the 
Petitioner "regularly used to employ skills ... such as stroke mec amcs, motivational techillye~, i~ 
workout regimes" that he learned froml I with the "demonstrable outcome" being s 
third place finish at the I lin the ~-------___,'s 8. As it relates to 
I I, formerLJ board president, asserts, "[the Petitioner] emphasized making changes 
together," an approach that "enhanced team cohesion and led to significant increases in boat speed." 
She attributes his work toc=J' s •-------~teams medaling in some of the most competitive 
events in the US." While these letters generally describe the Petitioner's contributions to these clubs 
as a coach, they lack detailed examples of how the Petitioner's work as a coach resulted in the stated 
outcomes. Further, they do not differentiate him from other coaches, either withinLJ andc=J or 
nationally, in a manner that might demonstrate his national or international acclaim as a rowing coach. 
Thus, while the Petitioner has established that he enjoyed national and international acclaim through 
his success as an athlete, these letters do not demonstrate that he sustained this level of acclaim as a 
rowing coach. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under 
section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act as a rowing coach. As such, we need not determine whether he is 
coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )( a)(ii). 
6 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from 
denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, 
regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our 
authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is 
comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center 
director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow 
that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra 
v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). However, he has not demonstrated sustained national acclaim and that his 
achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation. He therefore has not 
established his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for 
the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7