Date of Decision: February 26, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1A Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Athletics – Speed Skating Coaching
Petitioner Information
Profession: Speed Skating Coach
Field: Athletics – Coaching (Speed Skating)
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied – Director found petitioner met only one criterion (membership in associations).
Appeal Outcome: Sustained – AAO withdrew the Director’s decision and remanded for a new determination.
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Membership in Associations (ii): Petitioner established membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements.
Criteria Not Properly Considered by Director (Remanded):
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards (i): Petitioner received multiple awards and submitted comparable evidence showing his athletes earned international medals under his coaching. The Director failed to consider comparability.
- Published Material (iii): Petitioner submitted numerous articles, but the Director did not analyze them.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (v): Petitioner documented his coaching innovations and athlete successes, but these were not considered.
- Leading or Critical Role (viii): Evidence of leadership roles in distinguished organizations was inadequately evaluated.
- High Salary (ix): Petitioner provided compensation evidence and comparative surveys, which were ignored in the Director’s decision.
Key Points from the Decision
- The Director’s denial contained factual errors, including misidentifying the petitioner’s occupation as a “Financial Risk Specialist.”
- The decision failed to analyze evidence for several criteria and disregarded the comparable evidence provision under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4).
- The AAO emphasized that agency decisions must clearly explain denials, citing Matter of M-P- and 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i).
- AAO found that the Director’s reasoning for rejecting critical/leading role evidence (focusing only on organizational awards) was legally unsupported.
- Because the Director did not properly review or explain the record, the decision was withdrawn and the case remanded for proper analysis.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Intent: Athlete and federation endorsements linking petitioner’s coaching to international medal successes.
- Business Plan: Not applicable.
- Advisory Letter: Expert statements about his coaching career and international impact.
- Other Supporting Documentation: Articles, award documentation, salary records, and evidence of comparable contributions (Olympic athlete results under his coaching).
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal sustained; decision withdrawn and case remanded.
Reasoning: Petitioner established at least one criterion (membership), and AAO found that the Director failed to consider evidence for multiple others, including comparable evidence. A new decision must be issued after full review of the record.
