remanded EB-1A Case: Water Polo

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2024 In Re: 33902652 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a water polo player, 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 the Petitioner had received either a major, internationally recognized award, or, in the 
alterative, that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for eligibility. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act 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 working in the area of extraordinary ability; and their entry into the 
United States will substantially benefit the country. 
The implementing regulations provide that a petitioner may establish prima facie eligibility as an 
individual of extraordinary ability either by demonstrating receipt of a one-time achievement of a 
major internationally recognized award or, in the alternative, by satisfying at least three of the ten 
initial evidentiary criteria provided 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 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); 
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). 
Here, the Petitioner claimed eligibility based on a one-time achievement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
and further asserted that he could satisfy four of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Specifically, he claimed eligibility under the criteria related to lesser nationally or international 
recognized awards, memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements, published 
materials in major trade publications or other major media, and performance in a leading or critical 
role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii) and 
(viii). The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate this receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award and further determined that he met none of the four claimed 
evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision disregards most of the evidence 
submitted in support of the petition and in response to a request for evidence (RFE) and therefore does 
not explain why the evidence was deemed insufficient to establish his eligibility for the requested 
classification. The Petitioner also states that he submitted substantially similar evidence in support of 
a prior petition requesting the same immigrant classification and emphasizes that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) previously determined that he satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iii). 1 
The record supports the Petitioner's claims. Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, we 
conclude that the Director's decision did not adequately analyze the evidence provided and did not 
fully explain the reasons the petition was denied. 
First, we note that although the Petitioner submitted a response to the Director's RFE and the Director 
acknowledged its receipt, the portions of the decision analyzing the claimed evidentiary criteria do not 
mention or analyze any of the additional evidence or arguments that were included in the Petitioner's 
RFE response. 
Further, other than including a partial list of awards the Petitioner submitted for consideration under 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the decision contains few references to specific evidence the 
Petitioner provided with the initial filing. For example, in evaluating whether the Petitioner 
documented his membership in an association that requires outstanding achievements of its members, 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the Director's discussion was limited to "a letter ... indicating that 
the petitioner is a member of Collegiate Water Polo Association [ CWP A]." A review of the record 
reflects that the Petitioner claimed membership on the I Iwater polo team, the 
I !water polo team, and the I 
I lteam in men's water polo. The decision does not reflect that any of 
this evidence was considered by the Director. Further, the Petitioner clarified in response to the RFE 
1 In support of his claim, the Petitioner submits a copy of the Director's decision dated August 9, 2022, relating to his Form 
1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, with receipt number 
2 
that he did not claim eligibility under this criterion based on membership in the CWP A, which is the 
NCAA division in which his collegiate water polo team competed. 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires evidence of published materials about the 
individual in professional or major trade publications or other major media. In evaluating the evidence 
submitted in support of this criterion, the Director stated that the record contains "numerous articles" 
and concluded without further comment that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that any of the 
submitted published materials were published in major media. However, they did not acknowledge 
the Petitioner's submission of an article published in Sports Illustrated, and it is unclear whether this 
evidence was considered. 
The Director's decision includes a similarly conclusory determination with respect to the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which requires evidence that the Petitioner performed in a leading or 
critical role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. The Director did not 
acknowledge the specific claims articulated by the Petitioner or much of the evidence he submitted in 
support of this claim, other than generally noting that he provided "several letters ofrecommendation." 
Overall, the Director's decision did not address the evidence the Petitioner submitted with specificity 
and improperly disregarded evidence without proper explanation. An officer's written decision must 
explain the specific reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). This explanation 
should be sufficient to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us 
an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See, e.g. Matter of M-P-, 20 I&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). Here, for the reasons 
discussed, due to the Director's conclusory determinations and failure to address the Petitioner's RFE 
response, the Petitioner did not receive a fair opportunity to challenge the denial. Accordingly, we 
will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to the Director. 
On remand, the Director is instructed to re-evaluate the evidence submitted in support of the petition 
to determine whether the Petitioner satisfied the plain language of at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and to issue a new decision. In doing so, the Director should also review the 
Petitioner's appellate brief and submission on appeal, which further addresses the previously 
submitted evidence and USCIS' own previous determination that the Petitioner established eligibility 
under two criteria. 
As the Director did not conclude that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements, the decision 
did not include a final merits determination. If after review, the Director determines the Petitioner 
received a major internationally recognized award or satisfied at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), the new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record and evaluate 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national 
or international acclaim, that he is one of the small percentage oat the very top of his field, and that 
his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); see also Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3