remanded EB-1A Case: Swimming

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23193901 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 14, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a competitive swimmer, 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met 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 matter 
is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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)(l)(A) 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 his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that 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). 
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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibi I ity, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner did not indicate, and the record does not establish, that she has received a major, 
internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Petitioner must therefore 
demonstrate her eligibility under at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims to meet four criteria. The Director found that the Petitioner 
satisfied the regulatory requirements for two criteria, lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and published material in professional or major media at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The record supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner satisfied 
these criteria. 
The Director found the Petitioner did not satisfy the regulatory requirements for membership in 
associations that require outstanding achievements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), or for leading or 
critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she has satisfied both evidentiary criteria. After reviewing the 
evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has demonstrated that she satisfies at least three of 
the ten initial evidentiary criteria. 
The Petitioner claims she performed a leading or critical role with an organization of distinguished 
reputation through her roles as team captain and swimmer for the University 
women's swimming and diving team. The Director evaluated the evidence relating to the 
Petitioner's role with the women's swimming and diving team, finding that although the Petitioner 
had a leading role with the women's swimming and diving team as its team captain, she did not 
have a leading or critical role with the overall organization of The Director explained that the 
2 
criterion requires a leading or critical role for an "entire organization, as opposed to a department, 
component, time frame or season within the organization." The Director's analysis is incorrect, as 
USCIS policy states that the leading or critical role may be "for an organization, establishment, or a 
division or department of an organization or establishment." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.2(B)(2) (Appendices), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Therefore, consideration may be given 
to the Petitioner's leading or critical role within a division or department of including her team 
captain role within women's swimming and diving team. Therefore, the Director's finding is 
withdrawn. 
The record indicates that during the Petitioner's senior year at she served as co-captain for the 
Owomen's swimming and diving team. For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the 
individual is (or was) a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role 
is (or was), in fact, leading. Id. Evidence shows as a team captain, the Petitioner provided mentoring 
and support to her teammates, and led the team to winning thel ITeam Championships. 
A letter from the team's associate head coach,I I states that the Petitioner "served as a co­
captain of the team, as voted to the position, by her fellow teammates" showing "outstanding 
leadership, accountability, positivity, and dedication toward her teammates. Her contributions as a 
team leader, as well as exemplary student-athlete, were extremely valuable to our Swimmin and 
Diving program's culture and success." Another letter from the team's head coach, 
confirms the Petitioner's captain role and details her accomplishments, including multiple 
swimming records. The record shows that during her time as team captain, the Petitioner was named 
I !swimmer of the year and was one of a limited number of swimmers who qualified 
for and competed at the NCAA championships where she set aDschool record. She also helped 
her team to a conference title at the I I championships by setting a meet record and 
winning a gold medal in the 100 meter freestyle event; winning gold medals in the 50 meter freestyle 
and 100 meter backstroke events; and being part of three gold medaling relay team events. The record 
demonstrates the Petitioner perf01med a leading role for the women's swimming and diving team 
as its team captain. 
The record also shows the0women's swimming and diving team has a distinguished reputation. 
USCIS policy reflects that organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation are 
"marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence." Id. (citing to the definition of Distinguished, 
Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com). News articles and statistics in the record 
detail the team's accomplishments during the Petitioner's time on the team, and the team's rankings 
from 2017 to 2020. Ranking statistics froml lcom indicate for the year 2020, the team was 
ranked in its conference; I I in NCAA Division I mid-major, and in NCAA Division I. 
News articles show multiple wins and accomplishments of the team and its individual team members, 
including the team having won seven consecutive ____ Championships. The recognized 
accomplishments of the team sufficiently demonstrate the team's distinguished reputation under the 
criterion. 
Based on this evidence, we find that the Petitioner has met the requirements of this criterion. 
With eligibility under this additional criterion, the Beneficiary satisfied part one of this two-step 
adjudicative process. As the Beneficiary has met the initial evidence requirements of at least three 
3 
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). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for 
further review and entry of a new decision. Because the Petitioner has established her qualifications 
under criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and (viii), on remand, the Director should conduct a 
final merits review of the evidence of record. The new decision should include an analysis of the 
totality of the evidence evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim, her status as one of the small percentage at 
the very top of his field of endeavor, and that her 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. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4