remanded EB-1A Case: Education / Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23271180 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 30, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a teacher, coach, and speaker of extraordinary ability. 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing 
the Petitioner's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or by meeting three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand this matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 
The Petitioner has more than two decades' ex erience racticing I I a system of 
movement and meditatio The Petitioner learned the I I 
discipline by studying with masters at China's and subsequently 
introduced it to Mexico through the formation of his instructional facility and retreat.I I 
The Petitioner has submitted documentation demonstrating his intention to continue educating others 
in the field ofl I and to participate in speaking engagements in the United States. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must establish he satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted evidence relating 
to six criteria: 
• (i) Receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor, 
• (iii) Published material about the individual, 
• (v) Original contributions of major significance, 
• (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, 
• (viii) Performance of leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished 
reputations, and 
• (ix) High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others. 
The Director determined that the record did not contain evidence sufficient to establish that the 
Petitioner met any of the above-listed criteria necessary for qualification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in a specific field. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he provided evidence 
sufficient to satisfy five criteria addressed in the Director's final decision. As more fully discussed 
below, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner further asserts that the Director misinterpreted certain evidence submitted initially and 
in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). For the reasons discussed below, we 
conclude that the Director miscategorized the field of extraordinary ability for which the Petitioner 
requested consideration. Specifically, the petition lists the Petitioner's occupation as "Coach/ Speaker 
/ Teacher," and the record highlights his contributions as an educator through his development of 
original teaching methods that introduced and popularized the practice ofl I in Mexico. 
The Director, however, categorized the Petitioner's claim as one of extraordinary ability in the field 
2 
of "traditional Chinese medicine under the sciences." On remand, the Director should evaluate the 
Petitioner as an educator in the field of I I 
We also conclude that the Director did not adequately address all the claimed evidentiary criteria. An 
officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow the 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)(1)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 l&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). Because the Director did not adequately 
explain the reasons for denial of the petition, we will remand the matter for the entry of a new decision. 
On remand, the Director should review the evidence of record relating to the evidentiary criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), (viii), and (ix). 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of an award of recognition received from the former deputy director 
of the _________ in China for the Petitioner's teaching endeavors in Mexico. A 
letter from the president of an academy of Chinese disciplines in Italy describes the "highly symbolic" 
award as having never before been granted to a foreign practitioner of the discipline. 
In his decision, the Director summarily stated that the Petitioner has not offered independent, objective 
evidence to show that the award is considered a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. The Director provided no explanation or analysis of the evidence 
submitted. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 l&N Dec. at 786. On remand, 
the Director should fully evaluate all evidence submitted in support of this criterion to determine if it 
meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in thefieldfor which classification 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
We conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion, as the published material submitted is 
related to the Petitioner and his specific work in the field for which classification is sought, and the 
publications qualify as major media publications. 
Notably, with regard to articles in El Universal and Buen Hagar (Good Housekeeping), the Director 
erroneously stated that they "merely reference or quote [ the Petitioner] but are not about [ the 
Petitioner]." However, upon review, these articles name the Petitioner and describe his training and 
expertise inl las well as his intention to teach the discipline outside of China. Further, 
the record contains numerous articles about the Petitioner and his work published in various additional 
national publications distributed within Mexico, as well as major, internationally-recognized 
magazines. Also, the Director mischaracterized the probative value of some of the printed online 
3 
sources. He stated that they consist of "minimized screenshots and snippets ... whose print in many 
cases is too small to read or in Spanish." However, upon review, the relevant materials are legible; 
the corresponding translations are present; the materials show their titles, dates, and authors; and they 
relate to the Petitioner's work in the field for which classification is sought. We therefore conclude 
that the Petitioner has submitted evidence that meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner submitted three certificates of acknowledgement from the National Cancer lnstitute-
1 NCan, a public institution administered by the Mexican Secretariat of Health-as evidence of his 
academic contributions to the field ofl I The record also contains numerous articles 
and letters of support that reference the Petitioner's work introducing I Ito Mexico and 
the original teaching methods he developed to promote and spread the discipline to thousands of 
people. Several articles and letters also reference the positive impacts of the Petitioner's teachings on 
employee productivity. Notably, the record includes letters from three prominent individuals: the 
aforementioned president of an academy of Chinese disciplines in Italy, a former manager of editorial 
development at Reforma in Mexico, and formerl I Although these 
letters describe the Petitioner's acclaim in Mexico for his influence on thousands of people through 
his teaching process, the Director concluded that "they do not demonstrate [the Petitioner's] original 
contributions of major significance to traditional Chinese medicine." The Director did not evaluate 
whether the letters demonstrate the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance as an 
educator in the field ofl 1 Similarly, the Director did not evaluate whether the 
published articles in the record demonstrate the Petitioner's original contributions of major 
significance as an educator. 
Additionally, the Director incorrectly assessed the evidence using the standards for the final-merits 
determination, stating that "an individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be 
able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim." Under Kazarian, the issue of whether 
a Petitioner's achievements have resulted in sustained national or international acclaim is only 
assessed after it has been determined that they meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.S(h). This standard should not be applied to individual criterion. 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.2(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. On remand, the Director should fully evaluate all 
evidence submitted in support of this criterion to determine if it meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner does not dispute the Director's conclusion regarding this criterion on appeal. Therefore, 
we deem this issue to be waived, and we will not address this criterion further. See, e.g., Matter of M­
A-S-, 24 l&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
1 We note that the Director deemed the letters of support as "solicited," and gave them less evidentiary weight. However, 
the Director issued an RFE requesting the submission of additional letters from notable figures to supplement those initially 
submitted. The Petitioner obtained the requested letters and submitted them in response to the RFE. 
4 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vi ii). 
The Petitioner submitted numerous articles and letters of support to establish that his business,! I 
qualifies as an organization or establishment having a distinguished reputation. In his 
decision, the Director cited articles that reference the blessing and encouragement given by China's 
for the Petitioner to teachl I in Mexico, stating, 
"[T]hese articles are sympathetic to your cause and constitute promotional material. As such, they are 
not objective sources of your business's distinguished reputation." However, the articles do not appear 
to be advertisements, nor do they appear to be authored by anyone affiliated with ____ 
With regard to the letters of support, the Director stated, "You also submitted letters from your 
followers who do not offer independent, objective views regarding your business." However, the 
Director did not provide any analysis for this determination. Also, absent an explanation, the Director 
stated, "Nor do your tax statements establish the distinction of your organization." The Director's 
determination of the Petitioner's qualifications under this criterion consists of conclusory statements 
without corresponding analysis. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a){l){i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 
at 786. On remand, the Director should fully evaluate all evidence submitted in support of this criteria 
to determine if it meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
As evidence of his high income relative to others in similar fields, the Petitioner submitted receipts 
showing his earnings for various speaking engagements, his tax statements, and printouts from 
websites showing salaries in Mexico for occupations he believed to be comparative to his vocation. 
The Director did not adequately assess the contents of the tax statements because of his conclusion 
that they "are not signed and appear to be computer-generated work sheets." However, on appeal, the 
Petitioner affirms that the statements "are downloaded from the Mexican government's tax platform 
and do not include ... any signature or designated space for any signature." Further, the Director's 
analysis of the salary data is misplaced due to the Director's erroneous categorization of the 
Petitioner's field of extraordinary ability, as previously discussed. On remand, the Director should 
fully evaluate all evidence submitted in support of this criteria to determine if it meets the requirements 
of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Based upon the deficiencies discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand 
the matter for further review and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should request any 
additional evidence deemed warranted to address the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), (viii), and (ix). If the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three 
of these initial evidentiary criteria, the new decision should include an analysis of the 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 
5 
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)(1)(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 decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
6