Date of Decision: April 30, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Horse Owner and Breeder in Dressage and Jumping
Field: Equestrian Sports
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: The Petitioner received nationally recognized horse owner awards for excellence.
Criteria Not Met
One-Time Achievement: The Petitioner claimed his horse received the “Historic Highest Dressage Score” at a competition in 2005, two gold medals at the [redacted] Games in 2010 and 2014, and a bronze medal at the [redacted] Games in 2011. However, the Director found that these awards did not qualify as a major, internationally recognized award. The evidence did not demonstrate that these awards enjoyed the same level of attention or stature as other major, internationally recognized awards such as the Nobel Prize or an Olympic Medal.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed that his horses’ registration with an association and their participation on national teams competing at the [redacted] Games satisfied this criterion. However, the Director found that the evidence referred to the horses’ memberships rather than the Petitioner’s and did not demonstrate that the memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published Material About the Petitioner: The Director initially found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. However, upon review, it was determined that the articles mentioned the Petitioner as the owner of horses but were not about him. The articles focused on the horses and equestrian events rather than the Petitioner’s work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed his horses made original contributions by winning equestrian events. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that the horses’ successes were the Petitioner’s original contributions of major significance. The Petitioner did not show that owning successful horses established original contributions of major significance in the field.
Display of Work in Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner claimed that his horses displayed their artistic ability at equestrian competitions. The Director found that equestrian dressage, owning, and breeding horses for dressage did not meet this criterion. Athletic events are not artistic showcases, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he was the rider and trainer of the horses.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed to have established a distinguished reputation and worked alongside accomplished individuals in equestrian sports. However, the Director found that the Petitioner did not qualify as an organization or establishment, and the equestrian community as a whole is not an organization or establishment. The Petitioner did not identify a distinguished organization or establishment in which he performed in a leading or critical role.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner claimed high compensation from the sale of horse semen. However, the evidence showed the amount his business charged for horse semen rather than his personal remuneration. The comparison of a horse business to a horse-owning household did not demonstrate that the Petitioner commanded a high salary relative to others in the field.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for a one-time achievement.
Articles and Publications: Mentioned the Petitioner but were not primarily about him and did not meet the standards for major media coverage.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but did not demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met the criteria for receiving nationally recognized awards but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not provide the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The record does not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
