remanded EB-1A Case: Sports Event Planning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 5, 2024 In Re: 31284067 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a sports event planner, seeks first preference immigrant 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability either as the recipient of 
a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, or as someone who initially 
satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 
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 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 consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )( 1) 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 a beneficiary's 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 it must provide sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that the beneficiary 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
also allows a petitioner to submit comparable material if the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner demonstrates that the beneficiary 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. 20 l 0) ( 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 claims to be an individual of extraordinary ability based on his skills and experience as 
an athlete and sports planner. The record indicates that the Petitioner's initial experiences as an athlete 
who competed in cycling races segued to other athletic pursuits that entailed simultaneously competing 
in and organizing sporting events. The Petitioner started his sports event planning career as founder 
of the _________ which he used to organize the first cycling race in I I in 
2012 and through which he helped organize other bicycle races, such as the Open Championship, 
which was held in 2017 in I I the capital ofI I Then, after participating in multiple 
triathlons such as the widely recognized Ironman, the Petitioner began developing the triathlon 
competition in his home country through the ______________ an organization 
that the Petitioner helped found and run, serving as the organization's vice president. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner states that he intends to use his experience as an athlete to "inform his approach to 
organizing and planning sporting events." Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established his 
receipt of 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). The Petitioner claims that he meets the five 
regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) - (v) and (viii). 1 Further, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
1 The Petitioner originally claimed that in addition to the criteria listed above, he also met the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and (ix). Because the Petitioner has not addressed the Director's adverse findings regarding these two 
criteria on appeal, both criteria are deemed waived in the adjudication of this petition. See US v. Pilati, 627 F.3d 1360, 
1365 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding that an issue not raised on appeal to the district court are deemed waived); see also Rizk v. 
Holder, 629 F .3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that issues not raised in a brief are deemed waived). 
2 
§ 204.5(h)(4), the Petitioner also claims that he has submitted evidence that is comparable to the 
criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that he met any of the claimed criteria. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets at least three criteria and is otherwise eligible for the 
requested classification. He contends that the Director overlooked or disregarded certain evidence in 
a way that is not consistent with the regulations or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy. 
Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has met at least three of the claimed criteria. Namely, 
the record supports the Petitioner's assertion that he met the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
(v), and (viii). 
First, we will address the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), which requires evidence 
demonstrating a petitioner's participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field. 
Evidence submitted in support of this criterion includes an online article which discusses the 
Petitioner's role "as the chief judge" of a duathlon competition held in 2015 in I The article 
also describes the Petitioner as "a famous athlete, enthusiast, organizer of numerous competitions, 
[ and] president of the _________ and includes a quote from the Petitioner in which 
he explained that his role as chief judge involved disqualifying participants in the competition. The 
Petitioner also provided a letter from _____ president of the
I lwho described the Petitioner as "the biggest expert in triathlon in the entire country" and 
stated that the Petitioner assumed the role of a judge in three international triathlon competitions that 
took place in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Based on this evidence, the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner also provided documentation to show that he satisfied the requirements of the criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which requires evidence showing that the Petitioner made original 
contributions of major significance in his field. Documents showing that the Petitioner met this 
criterion include an article that credits the Petitioner with bringing about change in "the way of life of 
the I I people" by opening a running school called _______ which is described as 
"the central company" for organizing various athletic events that include running, cycling, and 
triathlon competitions. Another article lists the Petitioner as "one of the founders of triathlon in 
I; a third article refers to the Petitioner's position as vice president of thel I 
and lists the federation as organizer of the first aquathlon to be held in 
___ In a letter from the CEO ofl Ia business located in Russia, the Petitioner 
was recognized for his "iconic status as an event planner in his home country" ofl Iwhere 
he is credited with "shap[ing] the development of the sport of triathlon and the industry." The 
Petitioner also provided an _____________ documenting his methodology in a 
seven-week training course for distance running. Based on this evidence, the Petitioner has satisfied 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Lastly, we will discuss the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which requires a showing of 
the Petitioner's performance in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or 
establishments. Evidence pertaining to this criterion includes the previously mentioned letter from 
Mr. I I who discussed the Petitioner's "critical role in the development of triathlon in 
I I as well as in the development of the 
pointing out that this organization is "recognized as an official federation by the National Olympic 
3 
Committee and the International Triathlon Union." Mr.I I highlighted the Petitioner was one 
of the co-founders of the organization and was deemed to have "the most expertise, training, and 
knowledge pertinent [sic] triathlon, event organizing, and international standards." Mr.I I also 
stated that during the organization's initial years of existence, the Petitioner, "as our Vice President, 
undoubtedly carried the main load and did most of the work: organizing events, working on business 
partnerships, and so on." The Petitioner also provided letters stating that he was responsible for 
forging partnerships between his company, and various charitable organizations, such 
the whose head credited the Petitioner with 
organizing "the largest charitable running event" in _______ The same individual, 
together with the Director of the State Agency for Environmental Protection of Forestry issued an 
official letter of appreciation to the Petitioner, thanking him for "holding the first ever international 
charity race" for the conservation of the I I In light of the evidence submitted, we find that 
the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
With eligibility under the three criteria discussed above, the Petitioner satisfied part one of the two­
step adjudicative process described in Kazarian and has overcome the sole basis for the denial of his 
petition. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision. Because the Petitioner has met the 
initial evidence requirements of at least three criteria, it is unnecessary to discuss any additional 
eligibility claims relating to the regulatory provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
However, granting three initial criteria does not suffice to establish eligibility for the classification the 
Petitioner seeks or establish that the record supports the approval of the petition. As noted above, 
where a petitioner demonstrates that the beneficiary meets these initial evidentiary 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, 596 F.3d at 1115, 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3) .. The Director did not reach a finding 
on the final merits, and we decline to make the final merits determination in the first instance. We 
will therefore remand the matter. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4