Date of Decision: July 6, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Competitive Athlete in Weightlifting
Field: Sports
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 medals at the 2013 and 2014 World Championships, as well as other international competitions.
Criteria Not Met
One-Time Achievement: The Petitioner claimed that the bronze medal he received at the 2013 World Championships is comparable to an Olympic medal. However, the record did not demonstrate that this award receives the same level of recognition as other one-time achievements like the Nobel Prize or Olympic medals. The evidence provided did not show the same level of broad international press coverage given to the Olympic Games.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, such as the national weightlifting team. 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 several 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.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner provided evidence of regular salary payments and bonuses for achievements. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that his remuneration was high in relation to others in his field. The salary data provided was not sufficient to establish that his earnings were significantly high compared to other weightlifters.
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 did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he participated as a judge in a capacity that would meet the required standards.
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: The Petitioner did not establish that he commanded a high salary or remuneration relative to others in his field.
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.
