Date of Decision: January 14, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Competitive Badminton Player
Field: Badminton
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Not specified in the document
Criterion 2: Not specified in the document
Criterion 3: Not specified in the document
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Not specified in the document
Criterion 2: Not specified in the document
Criterion 3: Not specified in the document
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
New Evidence Submitted: Seven exhibits and a ten-page brief discussing the relevance of the new evidence in support of the motion to reopen.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning:
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not provide documentation satisfying the initial evidence requirements for demonstrating extraordinary ability. The petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which the Director dismissed, stating that it did not meet the requirements of either a motion to reopen or reconsider. Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director did not properly adjudicate the motion to reopen or address the petitioner’s claims and legal arguments. Therefore, the AAO withdrew the Director’s decision and remanded the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with their analysis.
Next Steps:
The petitioner should ensure that all relevant evidence is clearly labeled and meets the regulatory criteria. It may be beneficial to gather more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on awards with national or international recognition, significant contributions, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. The petitioner should also address any deficiencies noted in the Director’s original decision and provide additional documentation to support the claims made in the petition.
