Date of Decision: July 30, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Athlete
Field: Handball
Nationality: Russian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i): The petitioner received nationally recognized awards at handball tournaments in Russia, satisfying this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Materials About the Petitioner under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii): The petitioner did not demonstrate that Sobaka.ru, where his achievements were mentioned, qualifies as a major trade publication.
Participation as a Judge under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv): The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s role involved judging the work or skills of competitors as required.
Membership in Associations under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii): The petitioner failed to prove membership in an association like an Olympic team, which is required for this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii): The petitioner did not demonstrate that his team had a distinguished reputation.
High Salary or Remuneration under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix): The petitioner’s salary was not shown to be high relative to other professional handball players in Russia.
Key Points from the Decision
- The petitioner’s achievements, while notable, did not meet the high standards set for an EB-1 classification.
- The evidence was insufficient to show that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, which is a requirement for the classification sought.
Supporting Documentation
- Tax documentation from 2014 showing earnings.
- Records of awards from Russian handball tournaments.
- Letters from the Russian Handball Federation and other related documentation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for the EB-1 classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria. The provided evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate the extraordinary ability required for the classification.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the petitioner consider other visa categories that might be more suitable based on his achievements and current career stage.
