Date of Decision: August 24, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Gymnastics Coach
Field: Gymnastics
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 for Excellence:
The Petitioner provided evidence of awards received at national and international tournaments as a gymnast. These awards included second place in the women’s all-around and uneven bar events at the 1991 and first place in the uneven bars at the 1991 championships. This evidence established that the Petitioner meets this criterion as these awards are recognized in the field of gymnastics.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner submitted evidence of membership on the Chinese women’s national gymnastics team, which requires outstanding achievements. This evidence, combined with her participation in prestigious international tournaments, satisfied this criterion.
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided several articles, including one dated July 8, 1992, describing her career as a gymnast and preparations for the 1992 Olympics. Another article published in a magazine in 2008 discussed her career as both a gymnast and a coach. Although the Petitioner met this criterion, the evidence provided did not establish the significance of the publications as major media.
Criteria Not Met:
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner submitted a certificate indicating she was named a referee and given a title at a gymnastics event. However, there was no further evidence explaining the duties of a referee, the nature of the event, or the criteria for receiving the title. This criterion was not met as the Petitioner did not establish that she served as a judge of the work of others.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner claimed contributions to gymnastics training methods, coaching management, and training top-level gymnasts. However, the evidence provided, including articles and reference letters, did not establish that these contributions had a major impact on the field. The letters did not provide specific examples of the significance or widespread implementation of her contributions.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner submitted two papers she authored, but the record lacked evidence of their actual publication in professional or major trade publications. Therefore, this criterion was not met.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received several awards during her career as a gymnast. However, these awards were not shown to be at the level of national or international recognition required for sustained acclaim as a coach.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles about her career, but most focused on her achievements as a gymnast rather than as a coach. The significance of these publications as major media was not established.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions to gymnastics training and coaching management were praised but not demonstrated to be of major significance. The evidence lacked specific examples of how her work significantly influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The evidence provided did not establish that the Petitioner served as a judge in the field of gymnastics or an allied field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s membership on the Chinese women’s national gymnastics team met this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s articles were not shown to be published in professional or major trade publications.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters from professionals, evidence of awards, articles, and certificates. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner’s recognition or meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation includes specific details about the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
