Date of Decision: August 03, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Competitive Swimmer
Field: Athletics (Swimming)
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The petitioner served as a judge in competitions, evaluating the performances of other athletes.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored articles related to swimming techniques and training, which were published in professional sports journals.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner demonstrated original contributions through his development of innovative swimming techniques and training methods that have been widely adopted by other swimmers and coaches.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his awards, including restricted stock units (RSUs) from his company, are recognized nationally or internationally for excellence in the field of athletics.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner did not establish that his membership in The Venezuelan American Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VENAMCHAM) requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he commanded a high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed that his gold medals earned at the Paralympic Games demonstrate his receipt of major, internationally recognized awards or prizes and are sufficient to satisfy the initial evidence requirement for this classification. However, the Director concluded that the Paralympic gold medals do not satisfy the one-time achievement requirement, as the only example provided in the legislative history is a Nobel Prize.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles and other published materials about his work, which were recognized as meeting this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions were acknowledged, particularly his work on various audio products, were claimed to have significant impact in the field. However, the Director’s decision did not adequately consider the evidence submitted in support of this criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence of his participation as a judge of the work of others, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships did not meet the criteria as it was not established that the membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided evidence of authoring scholarly articles, which met this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner provided evidence of holding significant positions, demonstrating a leading role in his field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner did not claim or provide evidence for this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide evidence to meet this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not claim or provide evidence for this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted documents including articles, letters of recommendation, evidence of his participation in judging, and documentation of his contributions to swimming. However, these were insufficiently evaluated in the initial decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal resulted in a remand for further review and collection of additional evidence.
Reasoning:
The Director’s decision did not adequately address all the claimed evidentiary criteria and did not provide a thorough explanation for the denial. The case was remanded for a new decision that fully considers the petitioner’s claims and all submitted evidence.
Next Steps:
The petitioner should gather and submit additional evidence to support his claims, particularly focusing on demonstrating his sustained national or international acclaim and the major significance of his contributions to the field of swimming. The Director will then make a new final determination based on the supplemented record.
