remanded EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 06, 2024 In Re: 33401643 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an athletic trainer and coach, seeks classification as an individual ofextraordinary 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
meet the initial evidence requirements for this classification, either through his receipt of a major 
internationally recognized award, or by demonstrating that he meets at least three of the ten evidentiary 
criteria set forth in the regulations. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate his entry will substantially benefit the United States. The matter is now before us on 
appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa'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 
To qualify as an individual with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that: they have 
extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics which has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim; they seek to continue work in their field of expertise in 
the United States; and their entry to the United States would substantially benefit the country. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 
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 two-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then they must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten evidentiary 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). 1 
If a petitioner meets one of 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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 391-392 (5th Cir. 2022) (upholding USCIS' two-step review process as 
"consistent with the governing statute and regulation"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a high-performance trainer and coach in the sport of athletics. He states he has 
worked with track and field athletes of the Venezuelan national team as a staff member of the 
from 2012 until at least 2017. The Petitioner seeks to continue 
his work as an athletic trainer in the United States. 
The Petitioner has neither claimed nor demonstrated his receipt of a major internationally recognized 
award and cannot meet the initial evidence requirement based on a one-time achievement under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). He must therefore meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that he could meet 
up to eight of the ten criteria, but concluded he satisfied only two, relating to published material about 
him in major media and participating as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner alleges numerous factual and legal errors in the Director's analysis of the 
remaining evidentiary criteria. In part, the Petitioner contends that the Director mischaracterized his 
field or area of expertise in addressing the awards and membership criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
and (ii); reached a conclusory determination and improperly introduced derogatory information from 
outside the record in addressing his original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); and 
overlooked evidence and applied an improper standard in evaluating whether he has performed in a 
leading or critical role for an organization with a "distinguished reputation" under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
After reviewing the record in its totality, we conclude that the Director's unfavorable determinations 
with respect to several of the evidentiary criteria did not specifically address all the Petitioner's claims 
or evidence, and, in some instances, did not appear to adhere to USCIS regulations and policy guidance 
in explaining the reasons for denial. 
1 If the evidentiary standards do not "readily apply" to a petitioner's occupation, they may submit "comparable evidence" 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R § 204.S(h)( 4). 
2 
An officer's written decision must fully explain the specific reasons for denying a visa petition. See 
8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(i). Absent such an explanation, a petitioner is not provided a fair opportunity to 
contest the decision. See, e.g. 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 meaningful opportunity 
to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, because the Director's decision does not provide a 
complete analysis and sufficient basis explaining the reasons for denial, we will withdraw the decision 
and remand for further review and entry of a new decision, consistent with our discussion below. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
1. Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards or Prizes 
The Director concluded the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), which 
requires submission of evidence demonstrating his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
awards or prizes for excellence in the field of endeavor. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner 
had received several awards as a coach and athletic instructor but noted "[ s ]ince the [petitioner] 
appears to be coming to work in the U.S. as a trainer, the awards won as a coach will not apply." The 
Director further observed that "[ c ]oaching is a different career than athletic trainer" and stated the 
Petitioner "cannot borrow accomplishments earned in another field." 
We note, however, that the terms "coach" and "trainer" have been used interchangeably throughout 
the record to refer to the Petitioner's past work in the field of athletics. Further, his duties have 
consistently been described as including both physical training of individual track and field athletes 
and providing coaching on techniques and strategies designed to improve their performance in their 
specific events. Therefore, we disagree with the Director's determination that coaching and training 
are two completely different fields based on the context provided in the record. Because the Director 
determined that the Petitioner received awards in an unrelated field, the decision did not include a full 
analysis of the evidence submitted under this criterion. On remand, the Director should re-evaluate 
the previously submitted evidence and the Petitioner's appeal and make a new determination as to 
whether he demonstrated his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards. 
2. Memberships in Associations in the Field 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
which requires submission of evidence demonstrating that he is a member of an association in an 
association in his field that requires outstanding achievements of its members. The Director 
acknowledged the Petitioner's evidence that the admitted him as a coach of the Venezuelan 
national team. The Director determined, however, that because the Petitioner intends to work as an 
athletic trainer in the United States, this association "is not in the [petitioner's] field." Based on this 
determination, the Director did not further evaluate the Petitioner's claims and evidence relating to 
this criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, we disagree with the Director's conclusion that the occupations of 
athletic coach and athletic trainer are not within the same area of expertise. As the matter will be 
remanded, the Director is instructed to re-examine the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, 
and the Petitioner's statements explaining how the evidence supports his eligibility. 
3 
3. Published Materials 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which 
requires submission of published material related to him and his work in the field, and evidence that 
such materials appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The record 
as presently constituted does not support the Director's favorable determination. 
Although the Petitioner submitted a large volume of evidence in support of this criterion, he did not 
provide evidence that any of the submitted materials appeared in a qualifying form of media. Most of 
the evidence was in the form of on line articles, but the record does not contain evidence of the relative 
circulation, readership or viewership of the publications, and as such does not demonstrate that the 
materials appeared in major trade publications or other major media. Further, although the Petitioner 
indicated that he has been interviewed on television and provided transcripts for these claimed 
interviews, he did not provide screenshots or links to the interviews or evidence of the date on which 
they were aired. On remand, the Director is instructed to advise the Petitioner of these evidentiary 
deficiencies and allow him an opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of this criterion. 
4. Judging 
The Director also determined, without elaborating, that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence in 
response to the RFE to demonstrate that he has participated as a judge of the work of others in the 
same field, or in an allied field of specialization, under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). We will withdraw 
the Director's determination. 
The Petitioner claimed that he met this criterion based on his duties as a member of the and 
submitted two letters from officials that specifically address judging activities within this 
organization. One letter, from a member of theI I board of coaches, describes "the activities that 
are part of the annual judging process for coaches." However, the letter describes the review and 
oversight functions of the board of coaches, a distinct component within the rather than the 
individual judging responsibilities performed by all trainers and coaches working for the federation. 
The official does not state, and the record does not establish, that the Petitioner was a member 
of the board of coaches or charged with performing the review activities described in this letter. 
The second letter, from the I I general secretary, explains "the judging processes in the 
competition track" and the judging processes that impact administrative decision-making within the 
organization. However, she does not expressly state that the Petitioner has been a participant in these 
activities as a member of the I I coaching/training staff. hasRather, she states that the has 
"rigorous selection processes in each area" and that the Petitioner, as a coach, "goes through this 
meticulous process every year" to maintain his staff position. As the matter will be remanded, the 
Director should re-evaluate the evidence submitted in support of this criterion and may request that 
the Petitioner clarify the nature of his claimed activities as a judge. 
5. Original Contributions of Major Significance 
Regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director's 
decision did not sufficiently consider the contents of the recommendation letters provided by athletes, 
4 
coaches, and trainers within the and instead summarily concluded that "the evidence does not 
demonstrate the major significance" of his original contributions. We agree with the Petitioner's 
assertion that it is difficult to discern, based on the Director's decision, what specific letters were 
considered in reaching this determination; the decision only vaguely references "recommendation 
letters" in the analysis of this criterion, without specifically identifying any documents. 
Further, the Director questioned the credibility of a recommendation letter from a Venezuelan athlete, 
noting that USCIS independently reviewed her Wikipedia page and found the Petitioner was not 
identified as her coach. The Petitioner emphasizes that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that the 
record contains ample evidence that he coached this athlete. We note that if a decision will be 
unfavorable to a petitioner and is based on derogatory information considered by USCIS of which the 
petitioner is unaware, they must be advised of this fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the 
information before the decision is rendered. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i). The Director did not 
afford the Petitioner this opportunity. 
On remand, the Director should re-examine the Petitioner's claims and the totality of the evidence 
submitted in support of this criterion, including the Petitioner's appeal. If the Director intends to rely 
on information that was not submitted by the Petitioner, the Director must advise him of this fact prior 
to issuing a new decision. 
6. Leading or Critical Role 
In evaluating whether the Petitioner demonstrated that he has performed in a leading or critical role 
for an organization with a distinguished reputation under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted documents "claiming that [he] had a leading or critical 
role for the ____________ However, the Director found that "it does not appear 
[the ] had a distinguished reputation prior to the [petitioner's] alleged tenure with them" because 
the letters indicate that the Venezuelan national team was not consistently winning medals in 
international competition at the time the Petitioner was hired. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the evidence shows that the enjoyed a distinguished reputation 
during his tenure and beyond, and that there is no specific requirement that he demonstrate the 
organization had a distinguished reputation at some earlier date. Further the Petitioner emphasizes 
that the record contains evidence of the organization's "historical legacy" as the national governing 
body of the sport of athletics, its official recognition by the sport's international governing body and 
the International Olympic Committee, its regulatory authority in the sport, and its contributions to the 
development of Venezuela's best track and field athletes. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not provide sufficient analysis of the Petitioner's 
evidence or explanation for concluding that he did not meet this criterion. On remand, the Director is 
instructed to re-evaluate the previously submitted evidence and the arguments and evidence submitted 
on appeal to determine whether the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. 
5 
7. High Salary 
In determining whether the Petitioner established that he has commanded a high salary or significantly 
high remuneration in relation to others in the field under 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the Director 
concluded, in part, that he did not submit sufficient evidence of his past earnings. On appeal,the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by not accepting his employment contract with as 
evidence in support of this criterion, pointing to guidance provided in the USCIS Policy Manual. 
Given that the Petitioner's claim is based on payments he received between 2015 and 201 7, we agree 
with the Director that the employment contract alone did not provide sufficient evidence of his past 
earnings. The Petitioner's assertions on appeal are based on an incomplete reading of the guidance 
provided at 6 USCIS Policy Manual at F.2(B)(l), which states: 
users 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. Rather 
a credible contract or job offer showing prospective salary or remuneration may 
establish that the person has been able to command such compensation. 
Based on this guidance, a Petitioner may demonstrate eligibility though the submission of a contract 
or job offer letter for prospective employment. However, the Petitioner claims that he earned a high 
salary in the past (between January 2015 and December 2017) and therefore it is reasonable to expect 
him to submit evidence such as tax returns, pay statements or other evidence of past salary or 
remuneration for services corroborating the information in his contract. As noted by the Director, he 
submitted an "income statement" prepared by a Venezuelan public accountant, which indicates that 
the Petitioner earned "professional fees" of$72,000 over a three-year period. However, this statement 
does not identify the source(s) of the Petitioner's income, nor is it consistent with the amount offered 
in the employment contract from for the same period. 
Nevertheless, the Director ultimately concluded that users could not consider the Petitioner's prior 
earnings as an athletic coach because his intended work in in the United States will be as a trainer 
rather than as a coach. As discussed above, we disagree with the Director's decision to make this 
distinction between "coach" and "trainer" based on the specific facts presented in this case. According 
to the terms of the Petitioner's employment contract with he was hired to "give training courses," 
to prepare athletes "technically and physically" for competition, and to "participate in the programs 
of. .. training sports talents in the discipline of Athletics." Therefore, the Director erroneously 
determined that he could not rely on his earnings with to meet this criterion. As the matter will 
be remanded, the Director may request additional evidence relating to this criterion prior to issuing a 
new decision. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
For the reasons discussed above, the matter is being remanded to the Director to re-evaluate the 
evidence submitted under the initial evidentiary criteria at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As the 
Director's previous RFE did not address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) or provide the 
Petitioner with notice of derogatory information from outside the record, they should issue a new RFE 
in accordance with 8 e.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8) and 103.2(b )(16)(i). If, after review, the Director determines 
that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, the new decision should include an analysis of the 
6 
totality of the record, evaluating 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 endeavor. See section 203(b)(a)(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
7