Date of Decision: February 5, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Boxer
- Field: Boxing
- Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Receipt of a Major, Internationally Recognized Award:
The Petitioner held interim world champion titles in the World Boxing Association (WBA) and the World Boxing Council (WBC), which were deemed major, internationally recognized awards.
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards:
The Petitioner received other awards and recognition from local organizations for his boxing achievements.
Published Material:
Articles and materials about the Petitioner and his work as a boxer were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate membership in associations that require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish original contributions of major significance in the field of boxing.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner did not meet the criterion for serving in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner claimed interim world champion titles, which were accepted as major, internationally recognized awards. Additional awards and recognition were also considered but did not elevate the Petitioner to the required level of sustained national or international acclaim.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Articles about the Petitioner were published in professional or major trade publications, but the Director’s final merits determination did not fully consider this evidence, focusing instead on materials that did not qualify under the criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions to boxing were of major significance. The evidence provided did not show widespread implementation or significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable as the Petitioner did not provide evidence related to this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable as the Petitioner did not provide evidence related to this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner did not meet the criterion for serving in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable as the Petitioner did not provide evidence related to this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not considered in the appeal as the Petitioner did not fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable as the Petitioner did not provide evidence related to this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
World Champion Titles:
Documentation of interim world champion titles in the WBA and WBC.
Local Awards:
Certificates and recognition from local organizations congratulating the Petitioner on his interim world championship titles.
Published Articles:
Articles and materials published in professional or major trade publications about the Petitioner and his boxing career.
Reference Letters:
Letters from organizations such as the WBA and WBC regarding the Petitioner’s rankings and achievements.
Management Contract:
A management contract for the Petitioner, although it expired before the filing of the petition.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was remanded for further review and entry of a new decision.
Reasoning:
The Director did not fully consider all the evidence in its totality. Despite meeting the initial evidentiary requirements, the Director’s final merits determination did not adequately assess whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The Director is to conduct a new analysis considering the totality of the record, evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim, and whether he is among the top in his field. Additionally, the Director should consider whether the Petitioner has provided clear evidence of his plans to continue his boxing career in the United States.
