remanded EB-1A Case: Tennis Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10299398 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 28, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a tennis club , seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a professional tennis coach, as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act(the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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 although the record 
established that the Beneficiary met the initial evidentiary criteria , it did not show his sustained 
national or international acclaim or demonstrate that he was among those at the very top of his field 
of endeavor. The Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider; the Director dismissed the motion. The 
Petitioner now appeals the Director's dismissal of the motion. 1 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 
requested benefit. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will 
withdraw the Director's decision on motion and remand for further review of the record and a new 
decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103. 3( a)( 1 )(i) states that when denying a petition, the Director shall exp lain 
in writing the specific reasons for denial. The Director dismissed the motion stating, in part, that the 
Beneficiary did not establish that the decision was incorrect based upon the evidence of record at the 
time. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points out that the Director issued a one-page decision and did not address 
any arguments presented by the Petitioner on motion . The Petitioner also notes that the Director stated 
that "[t]his motion is not accompanied by new evidence ." The Petitioner asserts that it was not 
required to submit new evidence since it filed a motion to reconsider and in accordance with 
1 Appeals filed by representatives must contain a new , properly executed Form G-28 , Notice of Entry of Appearance as 
Attorney or Accredited Representative. 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a) . As we advised the Petitioner in our April 6, 2020 
correspondence , the Form G-28 filed on appeal was not properly executed . Accordingly we consider the Petitioner to be 
self-represented in this matter . 
requirements of a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), the Petitioner explained why the 
decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw and the evidence ofrecord. 
Upon review, we agree that the Director did not provide any analysis or address the Petitioner's 
arguments on motion to explain why the Director's decision was correct based upon application of 
law or policy and evidence in the record at the time. When denying a motion, the Director must fully 
explain the reasons in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and 
provide an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. Cf Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 
1994) (finding that the reasons for denying a motion must be clear to allow the affected party a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Therefore, we are remanding the 
case to the Director for further review and to sufficiently explain why the motion did not establish that 
the decision was incorrect. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2