Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Athletic Trainer And Coach

Athletics · Venezuela · 2024-09-06

Decision Date
2024-09-06
This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

0 of 3 criteria met
Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards or Prizes (Not Met)

The Director concluded the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion, stating that awards won as a coach would not apply to a trainer. The AAO disagreed, finding 'coach' and 'trainer' were used interchangeably in the record, and remanded for re-evaluation.

Memberships in Associations in the Field (Not Met)

The Director determined this criterion was not met, arguing the Petitioner's membership as a coach of the Venezuelan national team was not in his field as an athletic trainer. The AAO disagreed with this distinction and remanded for re-examination.

Published Material About the Alien (Not Met)

The Director initially found this criterion met, but the AAO determined the record did not support this. The Petitioner submitted online articles and claimed television interviews, but lacked evidence of major media circulation/readership or proof of interviews. The AAO instructed the Director to advise the Petitioner of these deficiencies and allow additional evidence.

Judging the Work of Others (Not Met)

The Director initially found this criterion met, but the AAO withdrew this determination. Evidence from officials described board review functions and general judging processes, but did not explicitly establish the Petitioner's individual participation as a judge. The AAO remanded for re-evaluation and potential clarification.

Original Scientific, Scholarly, Artistic, Athletic, or Business Contributions of Major Significance (Not Met)

The Director summarily concluded the evidence did not demonstrate major significance of contributions. The AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director's decision lacked specific consideration of recommendation letters and improperly questioned credibility using outside information (Wikipedia) without due process. The AAO remanded for re-examination.

Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Organizations with a Distinguished Reputation (Not Met)

The Director found this criterion unmet, arguing the Venezuelan national team did not have a distinguished reputation prior to the Petitioner's tenure. The AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director's analysis was insufficient, noting the organization's historical legacy and official recognition. The AAO remanded for re-evaluation.

High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration (Not Met)

The Director concluded the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence of past earnings (2015-2017), noting an employment contract alone was insufficient without corroborating evidence like tax returns or pay statements. The Director also erroneously distinguished between 'coach' and 'trainer' for earnings. The AAO disagreed with the distinction and remanded for re-evaluation, allowing for additional evidence.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Director's decision was withdrawn and the matter remanded because the Director's unfavorable determinations regarding several evidentiary criteria did not specifically address all Petitioner's claims or evidence, and in some instances, did not adhere to USCIS regulations and policy guidance. Specifically, the Director mischaracterized the Petitioner's field by distinguishing 'coach' from 'trainer', improperly introduced derogatory information from outside the record without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to rebut, and did not provide sufficient analysis for conclusions on original contributions and leading roles. The Director also failed to provide notice of evidentiary deficiencies for published materials.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The Director's previous RFE did not address the criterion for published material, and the Director also relied on derogatory information from outside the record (Wikipedia) without providing the Petitioner an opportunity to rebut. A new RFE is to be issued to address these issues and allow the Petitioner to submit additional evidence for published materials and respond to the derogatory information.

RFE Targets
Published Material About the AlienOriginal Scientific, Scholarly, Artistic, Athletic, or Business Contributions of Major Significance

Evidence

Evidence Types
Awards
Professional Memberships
Media Coverage
Judging Experience
Original Contributions
Leading Role
High Salary
Reference Letters Dependent
Evidence Submitted
  • awards as a coach and athletic instructor
  • membership in an association for coaches of the Venezuelan national team
  • published material related to him and his work in the field (online articles, claimed television interviews)
  • participation as a judge of the work of others (duties as a member of the board of coaches, judging processes in competition track)
  • recommendation letters from athletes, coaches, and trainers regarding original contributions
  • evidence of performing in a leading or critical role for the Venezuelan national team
  • employment contract with the Venezuelan national team
  • income statement from a Venezuelan public accountant

Similar Cases

Coach

Sports

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2025-02-26
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter because the Director failed to provide a complete analysis and sufficient basis for denial. Specifically, the Director did not discuss or analyze evidence submitted for criteria (iii), (v), and (ix), comparable evidence, or fully evaluate evidence for criteria (i) and (viii). The Director also made factual errors regarding the Petitioner's occupation and RFE dates.

Athlete

Sports · Kyrgyzstan

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-08-02
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability by not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the judging criterion was met, citing insufficient evidence regarding the nature and level of judging activities. The published material criterion was also not met due to outdated viewership statistics for the media outlet and the author not being identified. The awards criterion was not addressed as it would not change the outcome, and the membership criterion was met but insufficient on its own.

Personal Trainer

Sports

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-09-30
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically not demonstrating a major internationally recognized award or satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the Petitioner did not meet criteria for lesser awards (regional student bodybuilding, institutional conference presentations), original contributions of major significance (methodology not widely adopted beyond clients, medical applications lacked credibility), artistic exhibitions (bodybuilding competitions not artistic, presentations not comparable), or leading/critical role (brand ambassador role lacked quantified impact, university role lacked detail and impact evidence, organizations not shown to have distinguished reputation). No specific metrics were provided for met criteria as none were found to be met.

Coach

Sports

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-12-12
The AAO remanded the case because the Director's decision lacked sufficient explanation for denying the petition, failing to adequately address or analyze the evidence submitted for four specific EB-1A criteria. The Director improperly disregarded articles for lack of legible URLs or author names, summarily dismissed judging evidence without specificity, misapplied the law regarding 'leading or critical role' by requiring an 'entire organization' role, and erroneously discounted a job offer as evidence for 'high salary' by requiring actual wages earned.

Frequently Asked Questions

A remanded EB-1A petition means the case was sent back to the field office for further review. This happens when procedural errors are found or additional evidence should be considered. It is neither an approval nor a denial.

Browse More Cases

More remanded cases More Sports cases More cases from Venezuela

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-09-06.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 0 / 3
Evidence Types 8

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299

Related Pages

EB-1A Overview EB-1A in Venezuela All EB-1A Cases EB-1A Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist