remanded EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22668589 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB . 21, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a professional water skier, 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition) , concluding that the Petitioner did not establish she had a major, internationally recognized 
award , nor did she demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence . Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo . Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 
537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review , we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act make s 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 
exten sive 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 pet1t10ner 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she 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). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met the following six categories: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria relating to published 
material about the Petitioner in major media and authorship of scholarly articles, but that she had not 
satisfied the remaining categories listed above. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she met the 
evidentiary criteria relating to each of the areas upon which the Director issued an adverse 
determination. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the published material in major media and the scholarly articles criteria, but 
she also satisfies one additional category of evidence. Because we conclude the Petitioner has satisfied 
one additional criterion, we will provide analysis on that requirement, but it is unnecessary that we 
evaluate the remaining claimed criteria as the Petitioner is only required to satisfy three of the 
regulatory requirements. 
2 
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) 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the Petitioner must satisfy. First, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate that she is a member of an association in her field. Second, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate both of the following: (1) the associations utilize nationally or internationally recognized 
experts to judge the achievements of prospective members to determine if the achievements are 
outstanding, and (2) the associations use this outstanding determination as a condition of eligibility 
for prospective membership. 
The Petitioner contends that she was a member of the Belarus National Water Ski Team's main squad 
froml I The documentation indicated that recognition of sports in the Republic of 
Belarus is carried out by the Ministry of Sports and Tourism (MST). Thus, MST determined the 
country's official sports, and also selected each sport's national team. The documentation from MST 
stated that a national team consists of athletes, coaches, and other specialists selected for preparation 
and participation under the state symbols of the Republic of Belarus in the Olympics, Paralympics, 
Deaflympic Games, European Games, World and European Championships, World and European 
cups, and other international sporting competitions held by international sports organizations. 
As evidence of membership in the national team, the Petitioner submitted a certificate of membership 
from MST confirming she was in the main squad of the national team for each year from I I 
The Petitioner also submitted a document from MST listing the criteria used for selecting the national 
team. According to the MST's rules, athletes are selected based on results shown at official 
international and republican competitions. Further, MST established tables with specific 
competitions, events, age categories and acceptable rankings for each competition to qualify for the 
national team. The document from MST also stated the main squad of the national team should be 
approved based upon the proposal of the head coach and coaching counsel. And if several athletes 
have the same technical results, the decision on including an athlete to the squad should be taken by 
the head coach of the national team. 
While the Belarus National Water Ski Team is not an "association," we could consider the Petitioner's 
selection to such a team as comparable evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
because being named to the roster of a national team is the result of a multi-level national selection 
process, supervised by national experts. Given the level of accomplishment required to secure a place 
on a country's national team (which competes at the international level), it appears reasonable to 
conclude that it is the functional equivalent of an association of the type contemplated in the 
regulations. 
The Petitioner has, therefore, overcome the only stated ground for denial of the petition; the failure to 
satisfy at least three evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Nevertheless, the record 
does not support approval of the petition. However, granting the third initial criterion does not suffice to 
establish eligibility for the classification the Petitioner seeks. The Director must undertake a final merits 
determination to analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
3 
determine if they establish extraordinary ability in the Petitioner's 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. 1 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial, we remand this proceeding so 
the Director can render a final merits determination in keeping with the Kazarian framework. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (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 for the immigrant classification). 
4