Date of Decision: AUG. 24, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Competitor and Coach
Field: Athletics
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
(i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
The petitioner received several lesser nationally and internationally recognized awards for excellence in athletics.
(iv) Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner served as a judge in various competitions within his field.
Criteria Not Met:
(ii) Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his membership in an association required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
(iii) Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or other major media:
The petitioner did not submit adequate documentation showing published material about him in major trade publications or other major media.
(vii) Display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases:
The petitioner’s participation in competitions was not demonstrated to be of an artistic nature, and thus did not meet the criterion of artistic exhibitions or showcases.
(viii) Leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he held a leading or critical role in an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner received several lesser nationally and internationally recognized awards, fulfilling one criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings:
The materials provided did not meet the standards for major trade publications or major media, nor did they contain sufficient details such as titles, dates, and authors.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions had a significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner served as a judge in various competitions, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s membership in associations did not demonstrate the required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s roles in various projects did not meet the standards of being leading or critical within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s participation in events was not of an artistic nature, and therefore did not meet this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Membership Certificates:
Documentation provided included certificates of membership but lacked the necessary evidence of outstanding achievements. - Published Articles:
Articles submitted were not sufficiently detailed or from major trade publications or major media. - Judging Letters:
Letters indicating the petitioner’s role as a judge in various competitions were provided. - Event Participation:
Evidence of participation in athletic competitions was provided but did not meet the artistic nature criterion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that fulfill at least three of the ten lesser criteria. The totality of the material provided did not support a conclusion that the petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner consider alternative visa classifications or provide additional evidence addressing the deficiencies noted in the appeal decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here.
