dismissed EB-1A Case: Rowing Coach

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10980551 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a rowing coach, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider . The Director granted the motion and affirmed the prior 
decision. The Petitioner then appealed the Director's decision, and we dismissed the appeal. The matter 
is now before us on a motion to reconsider . 
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 review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A 
motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed . 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(4). We 
may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested 
immigration benefit. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration , a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of 
a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements . See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 m 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 
international 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 criteria 
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). 
III. ANALYSIS 
After a highly successful career as a competitive rower, the Petitioner began a coaching career that 
has included work at theLJ Rowing Association I land thel I Rowing Association 
I I 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, 1 he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claims to have met five criteria, summarized below: 
1 The Petitioner initially claimed that some of his medals qualify as major, internationally recognized awards, but we 
concluded otherwise, and the Petitioner does not pursue this claim on motion. 
2 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
In our appellate decision, taking into account the Petitioner's activity both as a coach and as an athlete 
in his own right, we determined that he had satisfied three criteria, numbered (i), (ii), and (viii). In the 
final merits determination, we concluded that the Petitioner had established sustained national or 
international acclaim as an athlete, but had not achieved comparable acclaim as a coach. This 
distinction is crucial because the Petitioner seeks employment in the United States as a coach rather 
than as an athlete. 
The Petitioner's arguments on motion center around 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), which requires 
documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. In our appellate decision, we concluded that the rowing crews that 
the Petitioner has coached won competitions and awards at the regional level, but not the national or 
international level. On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we misinterpreted and undervalued evidence 
regarding the I I Regatta I I, an annual rowing competition inl I 
Massachusetts, promoted as "the world's largest two-day rowing event." 
The Petitioner states: "Petitioner's athletes, and thereby Petitioner himself, won two gold and two 
bronze medals" at the I I In his brief on motion, the Petitioner quotes from letters previously 
submitted in support of the petition, attesting to the importance of thel land asserting that the 
performance of a team reflects on the skill and reputation of its coach. 
The Petitioner previously submitted evidence showing that teams fromc=] andc=Jwon medals at 
the I I in 2015 and 2017, respectively. The head coach of U.S. National Rowing Team 
(USRowing) states that four of the "masters' boats [ the Petitioner] coached" medaled at thee=] 
Other letters contain similar assertions, but these letters are not from individuals who worked atLJ 
ore=] 
A coach froml lstates that the Petitioner "co-coached" two medal-winning teams at the 2015 
~-~I but he does not clarify the extent or timing of the Petitioner's involvement. The head coach 
of US Rowing states that the Petitioner "started I I :s an assistant masters' coach" but "was 
soon tapped for a head junior coaching position." Thel trews that won medals at the 2015 I I 
were in the masters age class, not juniors, and the record does not establish that the Petitioner was 
directly involved with these crews at the time of the I I 
Statements from other officials atl landc=J provide even less corroboration. A November 2016 
letter froni Is executive director and head coach does not indicate that the Petitioner had any role 
with the medaling crews at the 2015 I I. Rather, she states that the Petitioner "is currently working 
toward his Level II Coac
1
hing tertification and is leading coaching clinics within our organization." 
In an August 2018 letter, s former board president states that the Petitioner coached "crews that 
3 
... won gold and silver medals" at regional events, but she does not mention thel I Likewise, a 
September 2018 letter from D s director includes many details of the Petitioner's work there, but 
gives no indication that the Petitioner coached the winning I lcrews. Given the Petitioner's 
emphasis on the I Is reputation as an important international event, these omissions are 
significant. 
A blog post on Os own website, published immediately after the 20171 I states thatD 
teams won gold medals in two events. The article names several~ coaches, but does not mention 
the Petitioner's name at all. A 201 7 Dress release, which announced the hiring of the Petitioner 
and two other coaches, did not indicate that the Petitioner coached medaling crews at the 2015 I I 
Given the above evidence, it is significant that the individuals who state that the Petitioner coached 
the medaling crews do not appear to have been in a position to witness, and thus personally attest to, 
the nature and extent of his work with those teams. The first-hand and contemporaneous evidence 
does not consistently show that the Petitioner coached the crews that won the medals. 
For the above reasons, the record is, at best, inconsistent lith resp
1
ct to the degree of the Petitioner's 
involvement with coaching teams that won medals at the Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that our prior discussion of thel I included errors that affected the outcome of the 
appellate decision. That discussion is the focal issue in the Petitioner's motion. As a result, the 
Petitioner has not established that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the 
time of that appellate decision. 
The motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider, and therefore must be dismissed. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration and has not 
overcome the grounds for dismissal of the appeal. The motion to reconsider will be dismissed for the 
above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4