Date of Decision: September 28, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Bullpen Catching Coach
Field: Athletics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields.
Description: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his memberships in professional baseball associations required outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.
Criterion 2: Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought.
Description: The articles submitted did not focus specifically on the petitioner or were not published in major media outlets.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor.
Description: The petitioner did not show that the awards he received were nationally or internationally recognized.
Criterion 2: Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.
Description: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of contributions of major significance in his field.
Criterion 3: Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
Description: The petitioner did not establish that his role as a bullpen catching coach was leading or critical within his organization.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner received several awards during his career, including the District Junior Championship and Leading Hitter Award. However, he did not demonstrate that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Several articles were submitted, but most did not focus specifically on the petitioner or were not published in major media outlets. Therefore, they did not meet the regulatory criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not assert or provide evidence of original contributions of major significance in his field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of participation as a judge in his field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner claimed membership in professional baseball associations. However, he did not show that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in his field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his role as a bullpen catching coach was leading or critical within his organization.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Awards and Prizes:
The petitioner submitted photographs of trophies, plaques, and certificates, but did not demonstrate that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized.
Published Materials:
Articles from various publications were submitted, but they did not meet the criterion as they were not focused on the petitioner or were not from major media outlets.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner claimed membership in professional baseball associations, but did not provide sufficient evidence of the criteria for membership or that these memberships required outstanding achievements.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of providing documentation that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The evidence submitted did not demonstrate the level of expertise required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence or reapplying with more comprehensive documentation to meet the regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability.
