remanded EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2024 In Re: 34576161 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a goalkeeper director, seeks classification as an individual 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 Petitioner had 
not satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen'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 recognition 
of their 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 they 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 fust 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a goalkeeper director, intends to continue his activities as a goalkeeper director and 
coach in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Although the Petitioner claimed to meet the plain language 
requirements of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) related to published materials (iii), 
judging (iv), leading or critical role (viii), and high salary (ix), the Director determined that he satisfied 
none of them. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains eligibility for these four criteria and asserts that the Director's 
decision was erroneous. The Petitioner contends that the Director did not review and consider the 
evidence submitted in support of the petition, specifically noting that the Director improperly 
disregarded pieces of relevant documentary evidence and did not properly acknowledge and analyze 
all of the evidence submitted. 
Although we conduct de novo review, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case because the 
Director's decision is insufficient for review. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow a petitioner a fair 
opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate 
review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding 
that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a 
2 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, for the reasons discussed 
above, the Director's decision did not adequately explain the reasons for denial. 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires evidence of published material about an individual 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to their work in the field for 
which classification is sought. The Petitioner submitted articles and evidence regarding circulation 
statistics for the publications in which the articles appeared, but the Director concluded that such 
evidence was not probative. Upon review, the decision does not reflect that the Director fully reviewed 
the evidence in reaching this conclusion. For instance, the Director stated that because the submitted 
articles did not contain a legible URL, the articles were deemed to be unreliable and were not given 
any evidentiary weight under this criterion. The Director further determined that some articles did not 
list an author and therefore did not warrant consideration. 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges the lack of an author in certain articles but argues that the 
Director erred by not affording individual consideration to other article(s) that did identify an author. 
The Petitioner further asserts that the Director's "bare-boned" analysis erroneously concluded that the 
articles were not supported by evidence of circulation statistics of the publications when in fact such 
evidence had been submitted and ignored by the Director. The Director did not provide sufficient 
explanation for the blanket rejection of the evidence submitted in support of this criterion and is 
instructed to re-evaluate the evidence on remand. 
Regarding the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the 
Director's decision did not address the evidence he submitted with any specificity and instead 
summarily concluded that the evidence was insufficient. We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that 
it is difficult to discern based on the Director's decision what specific evidence was considered in 
reaching this determination. As the decision only vaguely concluded that "simply performing one's 
job-related duties demonstrates competency but is not evidence that his 'achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise,"' without specifically identifying the evidence considered, the 
Director should re-examine the Petitioner's claims and all evidence submitted in support of those 
claims when evaluating this criterion on remand. The Petitioner's evidence in support of this criterion 
included a certificate from the City ofl Istating that the Petitioner served as a judge for four 
years on a panel of seven professionals, a letter from the Town Hall ofI I attesting to this role 
as well as a copy of their rules regarding jury selection, and other supporting evidence. 
In evaluating the Petitioner's claim that he served in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director erred by misapplying the law and disregarding submitted evidence. The 
Director stated that the Petitioner did not provide detailed information regarding how his role was 
leading or critical for an "entire organization." The Director's analysis is incorrect as USCIS policy 
states that the leading or critical role may be "for an organization, establishment, or a division or 
department of an organization or establishment." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
In addition, despite the Petitioner's submission of eleven letters and nine supporting exhibits, the 
Director simply stated with respect to this criterion that "the evidence only indicated that he 
participated in the creation and execution of the training methodology; improved the level of 
3 
goalkeeping methodology and scouting network; and stood out for his delicate treatment." The 
Petitioner argues on appeal that this single sentence indicates that the documents submitted in support 
of this criterion were not fully considered or afforded due consideration. We agree that the Director's 
decision lacks specific discussion of the letters and the supporting evidence meant to support his 
assertions. On remand, the Director should re-evaluate the evidence submitted under this criterion. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director's determination that he did not satisfy the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), which requires evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field, contradicts USCIS 
policy. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision erred by requiring him to present 
evidence of actual wages earned and erroneously discounted his offer of employment. 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner's assertion. The Director's decision stated that an 
"employment offer is not evidence of wages earned because it is not always paid out. Therefore this 
evidence cannot be included in the salary calculations." Contrary to the Director's determination, 
USCIS does not interpret the phrase "has commanded" to mean that the person must have already 
earned such salary or remuneration in order to meet the criterion. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.2(B)(l). Rather, a credible job offer showing prospective wages may establish a petitioner's 
ability to command a high salary in their field. Id. Therefore, we also remand this matter for the 
Director to re-examine the evidence submitted under this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by not affording consideration to the fact that the 
Petitioner 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 
Petitioner, we note that 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), aff'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. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the decision contains a brief analysis for each of the four criteria addressed, the Director's 
discussions of each criteria contain few or no references to the specific evidence considered. 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner was not adequately informed of the Director's reasons for 
determining that none of the materials submitted in support of four criteria satisfy the regulatory 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We will also remand this matter for the Director to re-examine 
the evidence submitted under the four criteria considered in the denial decision. 
4 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5