remanded O-1A Case: Equestrian Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2024 In Re: 29852344 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, an equestrian competition and sales business, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a 
professional showjumping horse groom, as a person of extraordinary ability. To do so, the Petitioner 
seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, available to individuals who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals 
of extraordinary ability in athletics: either receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or at 
least three of eight possible forms of documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). The matter 
is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and asserts that the Beneficiary satisfies 
at least three of the eight regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 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 ofChristo'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 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define "extraordinary 
ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) also allows a petitioner to submit comparable evidence if the petitioner 
demonstrates that a particular criterion is not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section IO I (a)( l 5)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(])-(8). The Petitioner asserted in response to the Director's request for 
evidence that the Beneficiary fulfilled five criteria, but the Director determined that the Beneficiary 
did not meet any of them. On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the Director's determination that the 
it has not established that the Beneficiary's occupation as a professional showjumping horse groom 
falls within the purview of "athletics" as set forth in section 101(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act. In addition, 
the Petitioner maintains on appeal that the Beneficiary satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), (7), and (8), and that the Director "summarily dismisses" its request to 
consider comparable evidence for the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(]) and (3). 
First, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly evaluate the Beneficiary's area of 
expertise and maintains that his occupation is within the field of athletics. In examining whether the 
Beneficiary satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(]) and (3), the Director concluded 
that "O-IA classification applies to individuals who have extraordinary ability in the field of athletics. 
It does not appear that grooming or providing care to horses is an athletic field." The Petitioner asserts 
that the Director's determination is not supported by a statutory or regulatory provision, or statement 
of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or Department of Homeland Security policy. It asserts 
that showjumping horse grooms are in the field of athletics, much like a trainer or a coach. 
The nature of the intended events or activities in the United States is critical in determining whether a 
beneficiary is entering the United States to provide services in the field of athletics. Our review of the 
record indicates that the Director's decision did not include sufficient analysis of whether the 
Beneficiary's area of expertise and intended work in the United States fall within the purview of 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "trnth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
"athletics" as set forth in section 10l(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act. We find that the information and 
evidence relating to the Beneficiary's area of expertise and intended employment in the United States 
is sufficient to demonstrate that his occupation falls within the purview of "athletics" as set forth in 
section 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act. Here, according to the Petitioner's initial letter, submitted 
contract, and itinerary, the Beneficiary's services as a head managing groom are required to prepare 
showjumping horses for competition. 2 Because the Director's determination on this issue was a basis 
for discounting the Petitioner's request for the consideration of comparable evidence for the criteria at 
(J) and (3), we are remanding for her to consider whether the Petitioner has met its burden of proof 
with respect to those criteria. 
In addition, the Petitioner challenges the Director's determination that it did not meet the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7) because it did not establish the Beneficiary's work for organizations 
or establishments. Here the Petitioner has submitted a resume for the Beneficia which indicates his 
employment with,__ ____________________ ___. and I I 
I I The resume also provides a brief descriptions of the duties he performed for each employer 
as a head groom, international stable manager, professional managing groom, and FEI Show Groom. 
The Beneficiary's former employers have submitted recommendation letters on his behalf that 
reference his role for their organizations and provide background information or documentation 
regarding the companies. 
The Director's decision concluded the record did not establish that "the Beneficiary's role as a groom 
is in a critical or essential capacity for these organizations. Nor did you establish these organizations 
have a distinguished reputation." As the decision did not specifically identify the evidence considered 
in reaching this determination, the Director should re-examine the Petitioner's claims and all evidence 
submitted in support of those claims when evaluating this criterion on remand. An officer must fully 
explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow a 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)(l)(i); 
see also Matter ofM-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). Because the Director's decision does not provide a sufficient explanation 
of the reasons for denial with respect to the criterion at§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7), we are remanding for 
her to also consider whether the Petitioner has met its burden of proof with respect to this criterion. 
Moreover, on appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not fully evaluate its request to 
consider comparable evidence for the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) and (3). As stated, 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) provides that "[i]f the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) 
of this section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit 
comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility." USCIS determines if the 
evidence submitted is comparable to the evidence required in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). 3 This 
regulatory provision provides petitioners the opportunity to submit comparable evidence to establish 
the person's eligibility, if it is determined that a particular evidentiary criterion described in the 
regulations does not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. When evaluating such comparable 
2 The record reflects that grooms for showjumping horses oversee the horse's management, particularly during the stress 
of travel and competitions, professionally assess the horse's welfare, prepare the horse for competition, and administer 
nutrition and medicines, among other duties. 
3 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual M.4(C), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 
evidence, officers must consider whether the particular criterion is readily applicable to the person's 
occupation and, if not, whether the evidence provided is of comparable significance to that criterion. 
A general unsupported assertion that the listed criterion does not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation is not probative. However, a statement from the petitioner can be sufficient to establish 
whether a criterion is readily applicable if that statement is detailed, specific, and credible. Although 
officers do not consider comparable evidence where a particular criterion is readily applicable to the 
person's occupation, a criterion need not be entirely inapplicable to the person's occupation. Rather, 
the officer considers comparable evidence if the petitioner shows that a criterion is not easily 
applicable to the beneficiary's job or profession. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the Director appears to have discounted it's request for consideration 
of comparable evidence for the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(]) and (3). At both initial 
filing and in response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner made arguments for the 
Beneficiary's eligibility under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(]) and (3) based on 
comparable evidence. However, the Director's decision does not reflect the Director sufficiently 
considered the Petitioner's comparable evidence arguments or explained why comparable evidence 
claims could not be evaluated. The Director's discussion of the comparable evidence the Petitioner 
submitted under those criteria is conclusory and does not specifically address the Petitioner's claims 
or the evidence submitted for those criteria. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter 
for further review and entry of a new decision. In the new decision, regarding the Petitioner's request 
for consideration of comparable evidence the Director should determine whether the Petitioner first 
established that the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(]) and (3) do not readily apply to the 
Beneficiary's occupation. If so, then the Director must determine whether the evidence is truly 
comparable to those claimed criteria. Furthermore, if the Director determines that the Petitioner 
satisfies the requirement either of a major, internationally recognized award or of at least three criteria, 
the decision should include an analysis of the totality of all the evidence in the record to determine 
whether the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have arisen to the very top of his field. See section 101(a)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 4 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
4