remanded EB-1A Case: Dressage

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WLY 12, 2023 In Re: 22684439 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a dressage trainer, 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish that he satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements through evidence of a one-time 
achievement or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Director 
also dismissed a subsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider, stating that the Petitioner had 
not presented English language translations of his foreign language documents in accordance with the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).1 The Director's decision on motion further indicated that because 
the Petitioner had not provided proper English language translations, "all evidence submitted fails to 
be considered as probative and will not be considered." The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 I&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. 
Our review of the record indicates that the Petitioner 's motion before the Director included properly 
certified English language translations of his foreign language documents in compliance with the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The Director 's decision on motion should have considered these 
translated documents, as well as the letters of support and other evidence that were not in a foreign 
language. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision "did not consider all probative 
evidence" and the record supports this conclusion. Because the Director's decision did not consider 
the arguments and evidence presented by the Petitioner, we remand this proceeding to the Director for 
a new decision addressing the merits of the Petitioner's combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
1 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation . 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2