Date of Decision: July 14, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Boxer and Kickboxer
Field: Martial Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner met this criterion based on his receipt of several awards in boxing and kickboxing tournaments. The Petitioner provided certificates showing he received awards in national and international competitions.
Criteria Not Met
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The provided documentation did not adequately support the claim that the Petitioner’s membership was based on such criteria.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner submitted articles about his achievements. However, most articles were not primarily about the Petitioner and did not meet the requirements for published material in major media. The evidence did not demonstrate that the sources qualify as major media, and some articles lacked proper date and author information.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed original contributions based on his athletic achievements and their impact on the sport. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance. The letters praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked specific, detailed information on how his contributions significantly impacted the field.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner provided evidence of his participation as a judge in several kickboxing tournaments. However, the letters contained inconsistencies regarding the events and years in which the Petitioner served as a judge. The Petitioner did not provide additional corroborating evidence such as official records from the events or his judging credentials.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed to have served as the captain of the national and junior national taekwondo teams. However, the evidence provided, including letters and a personal statement, was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner held a formal team captain role or that the teams had a distinguished reputation in the sport.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner established that he received nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles provided did not focus primarily on the Petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on the impact and significance of his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided letters attesting to his judging experience, but the letters contained inconsistencies and were not corroborated by additional evidence.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Analysis of Director’s Decision on Motion
The Director initially concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the required criteria and denied the petition. The Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed because it did not include a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the Director’s decision. Additionally, the Petitioner did not submit a brief or additional evidence within the given time frame. The matter was then reviewed under a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. However, the Petitioner did not provide new facts or evidence to support the motion, nor did he demonstrate that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen is dismissed. The motion to reconsider is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought. The motions did not establish that the previous decision was incorrect based on the application of law or policy, nor did they provide new evidence to meet the criteria.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The Petitioner should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in his field.
