Date of Decision: September 6, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Athletic Trainer and Coach
Field: Athletics and High-Performance Coaching
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded for further determination
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to meet at least three regulatory criteria but was determined to meet only two, as noted by the Director. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found errors in the Director’s analysis and remanded the case for reevaluation.
Criteria Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Evidence of published material about the petitioner’s work in major media was submitted. However, the AAO instructed the Director to further evaluate whether the submitted materials qualified as professional or major trade publications.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- Letters from officials and organizations referenced the petitioner’s judging activities. However, the AAO noted that evidence lacked specificity about the petitioner’s direct participation and instructed further clarification.
Criteria Not Fully Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards or Prizes:
- The Director concluded that coaching awards did not apply to the petitioner’s intended role as a trainer. The AAO disagreed with this distinction and instructed the Director to reexamine the awards evidence.
- Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements:
- The petitioner provided evidence of membership as a coach for the Venezuelan national team. The AAO found that the Director did not fully evaluate this evidence and instructed a reanalysis.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Letters from colleagues and athletes described the petitioner’s contributions to athletic coaching and training. The AAO determined that the Director failed to consider the evidence in totality and must reassess it.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role:
- The petitioner’s role as a coach for the Venezuelan national team was acknowledged, but the Director concluded that the organization lacked a distinguished reputation. The AAO found this analysis insufficient and instructed a reevaluation.
- High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration:
- The petitioner submitted evidence of earnings through an employment contract. The AAO disagreed with the Director’s rejection of this evidence and instructed further evaluation.
Key Points from the Decision
Director’s Errors:
- Mischaracterization of the petitioner’s role as a coach versus a trainer.
- Failure to provide a comprehensive analysis of the evidence under several criteria.
- Reliance on derogatory information (e.g., Wikipedia) without giving the petitioner an opportunity to rebut it, in violation of USCIS regulations.
AAO Instructions on Remand:
- Reassess the evidence submitted under the initial evidentiary criteria.
- Issue a new RFE to address evidentiary deficiencies, provide the petitioner an opportunity to respond, and ensure compliance with USCIS regulations.
- If at least three criteria are satisfied, conduct a final merits determination to evaluate whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Evidence: Documentation of coaching awards, to be reexamined.
Judging Evidence: Letters referencing judging activities, requiring additional clarification.
Membership Evidence: Records of association memberships, requiring further evaluation.
Contribution Evidence: Letters from colleagues and athletes, to be reassessed for significance.
Leadership Evidence: Documentation of roles and responsibilities with the Venezuelan national team.
Salary Evidence: Employment contract and earnings statements, requiring additional corroboration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further analysis and decision-making.
Reasoning:
The AAO found that the Director failed to adequately analyze the petitioner’s evidence and address key issues in the initial decision. The case will be reevaluated based on the evidence submitted and additional information to be provided by the petitioner.
