Athlete

The Director's decision was withdrawn because the AAO found that the Petitioner met the criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)), in addition to the two criteria (scholarly articles and display of work) previously acknowledged by the Director. This brings the total met criteria to three, satisfying the initial evidence requirement. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim and status at the top of the field.

The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner only met two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria: judging (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)) and scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)). The AAO, upon de novo review, concluded that the Petitioner also met the criterion for published material about them in major media (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)), overturning the Director's finding on this point. Specifically, the AAO found that press coverage of the Petitioner's corporate work, including articles from China Youth Daily, China News Service, 21st Century Business Herald, China Enterprise News, Xinmin Weekly, The Morning Express, Southern Metropolis Daily, Nan Fang Daily Press, and Technology Entrepreneurship, along with supporting documentation, was sufficient to establish this criterion. Therefore, with three criteria met, the case was remanded for a final merits determination.

The AAO remanded the case because the Director's final merits determination was incomplete. Specifically, the Director failed to evaluate the acclaim associated with the Petitioner's prizes or awards, original contributions, and high salary or remuneration. Additionally, the Director did not fully consider all evidence for published material, judging experience, and display of work, and misapplied the definition of 'sustained acclaim' for leading/critical roles, particularly regarding a seven-year gap in performance.