remanded EB-1A Case: Athletics Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21441044 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 27, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a I I coach, 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 although the 
Petitioner established that he satisfies the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, he did 
not establi sh, as required , that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. See section 291 of the Act; Matter oJChawath e, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 
375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review , we will withdraw the Director 's decision and remand the 
matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis . 
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 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they 
must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that they meet 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 establishes that they meet 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, iffolfilling 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 record reflects that the Petitioner is a coach. He states that he intends to continue 
his work as a lcoach in the United States. 
As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must demonstrate that he meets the initial evidence requirements by satisfying 
at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed that he could 
meet seven of these ten criteria, and the Director determined that he met three of them. Specifically, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria related to lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence, published materials in professional 
publications or major media, and judging the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specialization. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and (iv). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner claimed, but did not establish, that he meets the criteria 
related to membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members, original 
contributions of major significance in his field, display of his work in the field at artistic exhibitions 
and showcases, and leading or critical roles with organizations that have a distinguished reputation. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v), (vii), and (viii). 
Because the Petitioner demonstrated that he met the initial evidence requirements, the Director 
proceeded to a final merits determination. In a final merits determination, the Director must analyze 
all of a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have 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) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked or discounted the extensive evidence 
submitted pertaining to his sustained acclaim, and we agree with that assertion. Here, the Director's 
final merits analysis did not consider the record in its entirety and is lacking a detailed discussion of the 
evidence provided in support of the petition. Although the Petitioner submitted evidence relating to 
seven of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), the final merits discussion only briefly addresses 
evidence relating to the three criteria that the Director determined the Petitioner had satisfied, rather 
than considering the evidence in its totality. The final merits analysis narrowly focuses on the criteria 
relating to lesser awards, published material, and judging, and does not assess whether the submitted 
evidence in support of those criteria shows sustained national or international acclaim. For instance, 
the Petitioner on appeal highlights each individual award he has received, and argues that his receipt of 
such "prestigious medals at high-level events before the filing of the petition" is indicative of his sustained 
international acclaim. However, the Director's final merits analysis simply states that the Petitioner won 
"won six awards between the years of2011 and 2020" without any further analysis or discussion of those 
awards. 
In addition to narrowly focusing on the above-referenced criteria, the Director's final merits analysis 
failed to consider the totality of the material provided in support of the petition. The record includes 
multiple expert opinion letters from U.S. professionals, past employers, and industry experts that 
address the Petitioner's standing in the field, evidence related to his professional memberships, and 
evidence of his roles and contributions as a I coach. Because the Director did not consider any 
of this evidence in the final merits analysis, the decision did not sufficiently address why the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated his eligibility for the requested classification. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order 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 of M-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 meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, as explained above, the Director did not 
adequately explain the reasons for denial of the petition. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further review and 
entry of a new decision. As the Director already determined that the Petitioner satisfied at least three 
criteria, the Director should evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and whether the record demonstrates 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. 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. The new decision should 
include an analysis of the totality of the record, including additional evidence the Petitioner has 
provided on appeal and the evidence submitted in support of all claimed initial evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3