Date of Decision: December 12, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Goalkeeper Director
Field: Athletics – Goalkeeper Training and Methodology
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to demonstrate eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) by satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the Director did not adequately analyze or consider the evidence submitted, resulting in a remand for further review.
Criteria Contested:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner submitted articles and evidence regarding circulation statistics for the publications in which the articles appeared. However, the Director dismissed the evidence without proper evaluation, citing unreliable URLs and missing authors.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner provided evidence, including a certificate and a letter confirming his role as a judge in international goalkeeper evaluations. The Director did not analyze the evidence in detail.
- Leading or Critical Role:
- Evidence included letters and documentation describing the petitioner’s leadership in designing and implementing goalkeeper training methodologies. The Director failed to consider the specifics of this evidence, including its impact on the organizations involved.
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- The petitioner submitted an employment offer with a high salary relative to peers in the field. The Director incorrectly dismissed this as insufficient, stating that wages must already have been earned to qualify.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Material:
- The AAO directed the Director to re-evaluate the evidence submitted under this criterion, including articles with verified authors and circulation statistics.
Judging Evidence:
- The petitioner’s certificates and letters detailing judging roles were not fully analyzed. The AAO emphasized the need for specific evaluation.
Leadership Roles:
- Documentation of the petitioner’s contributions to goalkeeper training methodology was dismissed without adequate discussion.
High Salary Evidence:
- The AAO clarified that prospective salaries could meet the high remuneration criterion under USCIS policy, contrary to the Director’s interpretation.
Final Merits Determination:
- The AAO remanded the case for further evaluation of the evidence and a final merits determination.
Supporting Documentation
Published Material: Articles and circulation data for media coverage.
Judging Evidence: Certificates and letters confirming judging roles.
Leadership Evidence: Letters and documents outlining contributions to goalkeeper training.
Salary Evidence: Employment offer detailing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for re-evaluation.
Reasoning:
The Director failed to properly evaluate evidence for four regulatory criteria. The AAO instructed a detailed review of the evidence submitted and a final determination.
