Date of Decision: AUG. 31, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Athlete in Rhythmic Gymnastics
Field: Rhythmic Gymnastics
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None of the criteria were met according to the USCIS analysis.
Criteria Not Met:
(i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
The petitioner provided evidence of awards from various competitions, but these were not demonstrated to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes. The awards were mostly from local, regional, or school competitions.
(iii) Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or other major media:
The petitioner provided two articles, but they did not meet the required criteria. One article was not specific about the petitioner, and the publications were not shown to be major trade or professional publications.
(v) Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of original contributions of major significance to the field of rhythmic gymnastics. Letters from experts lacked the necessary detail and corroborating evidence.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner provided certificates from various competitions, but the evidence did not establish that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized. The provided competitions appeared to be local or regional, and no additional evidence was submitted to support the claim of their significance.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner submitted two articles, but they did not meet the requirements. One article was about a group performance, not the petitioner, and the other lacked evidence of being published in a major media outlet.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner claimed contributions to the field but did not provide detailed evidence or corroboration of these contributions being of major significance. The evidence did not support the claim that these contributions had a significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates of Awards:
Certificates from various rhythmic gymnastics competitions were provided, but they did not demonstrate national or international recognition. - Published Articles:
Two articles were submitted, but they did not meet the criteria for major trade or professional publications. - Expert Letters:
Letters from experts claimed contributions but lacked detailed evidence of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that fulfill at least three of the ten lesser criteria. The totality of the material provided did not support a conclusion that the petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner consider alternative visa classifications or provide additional evidence addressing the deficiencies noted in the appeal decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here.
