Date of Decision: March 21, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Athlete
Field: Powerlifting
Nationality: [Petitioner’s Nationality Not Specified in the Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met: None
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership: The petitioner claimed membership in a powerlifting team which required outstanding achievements. The appeal failed to provide sufficient evidence that the team’s membership standards were based on outstanding achievements recognized by national or international experts.
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The evidence did not adequately demonstrate that the published materials were in professional or major trade publications or that they were related to the petitioner’s work in the field for which classification is sought.
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner did not substantiate claims of judging others’ work effectively, as required by the criterion. There was a lack of clarity on how the petitioner could simultaneously coach and judge in the same competition, casting doubt on the neutrality expected of a judge.
Key Points from the Decision
- Awards and Prizes Won: Over 20 medals in national and international competitions.
- Membership in Associations: Failed to prove that the powerlifting team membership required outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: Publications mentioned did not meet the criteria for professional or major media publications.
- Participation as a Judge: Evidence was insufficient to prove formal and unbiased judging at competitions.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted multiple documents including letters from sports organizations and articles from various publications. However, the evidence was found lacking in demonstrating the petitioner’s qualifications under the required criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed. The petitioner did not meet at least three of the required evidentiary criteria, which is necessary to qualify for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Reasoning: The appeal failed primarily because the petitioner could not adequately demonstrate membership in an elite group judged by standards of national or international experts, nor could he provide evidence of significant recognition in professional publications. Additionally, the roles as both a coach and a judge conflicted, undermining the credibility of his judging activities.
Next Steps: For future petitions, it would be advisable for the petitioner to gather and present more concrete and verifiable evidence that fulfills the specific criteria, such as definitive proof of the elite status of memberships and detailed documentation of media coverage that clearly aligns with his professional achievements.
