Date of Decision: NOV. 30, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Coach, Speaker, Teacher
Field: Traditional Chinese Movement and Meditation
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published material about the individual:
The Petitioner submitted numerous articles from major media publications in Mexico and internationally recognized magazines. These articles detail his training, expertise, and contributions to the field of traditional Chinese movement and meditation.
Original contributions of major significance:
The Petitioner provided certificates of acknowledgment from the National Cancer Institute of Mexico and letters from notable figures, highlighting his original teaching methods and their significant impact in Mexico.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field of endeavor:
The Petitioner received an award from a former deputy director in China for his teaching endeavors in Mexico. However, the Director required more independent and objective evidence to prove its national or international recognition.
Performance of leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations:
The Petitioner’s business was cited as having a distinguished reputation, supported by various articles and letters. The Director did not fully evaluate this evidence, citing lack of independent views.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others:
The Petitioner presented tax statements and salary comparisons from Mexico. The Director dismissed these due to their computer-generated nature and misinterpretation of the Petitioner’s field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Director did not provide a detailed analysis of the Petitioner’s award. On remand, a thorough evaluation of the evidence is necessary.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Articles in El Universal and Buen Hagar (Good Housekeeping) clearly named the Petitioner and discussed his work. Despite the Director’s initial dismissal, these qualify as significant published materials.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s original teaching methods and their widespread adoption were documented through various articles and letters. The Director failed to consider these under the correct field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not dispute the Director’s decision on this criterion, and it is deemed waived.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s organization received acknowledgment and support from notable figures. The Director’s evaluation lacked comprehensive analysis.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner provided detailed tax statements and comparative salary data, which were dismissed without proper evaluation.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Award of Recognition: Provided by a former deputy director in China for teaching in Mexico.
- Articles in Major Publications: Articles in El Universal and Buen Hagar discussing the Petitioner’s work.
- Certificates from National Cancer Institute of Mexico: Acknowledgment of academic contributions.
- Letters from Notable Figures: Support from various respected individuals in the field.
- Tax Statements and Salary Comparisons: Evidence of high remuneration in Mexico.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded for further review
Reasoning: The Director did not adequately evaluate the evidence, especially under the correct field of the Petitioner’s expertise. The Petitioner met the criterion for published material and original contributions, but the Director’s analysis of other criteria was incomplete.
Next Steps:
- Comprehensive Review: The Director should fully evaluate all submitted evidence.
- Additional Evidence: The Petitioner may submit further documentation to support the remaining criteria.
