Date of Decision: August 2, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Long-distance runner
Field: Athletics
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards: The petitioner provided evidence of first-place finishes in notable marathon and half-marathon events, which the Director did not adequately recognize as significant awards.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements: The Director’s review did not consider all the supplemental evidence provided by the petitioner.
- Published material about her and her work: The Director dismissed online articles and media coverage from reputable sources without sufficient justification.
- Original contributions of major significance: The Director did not address the specifics of the petitioner’s contributions or consider the context of the letters of support submitted.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner submitted evidence of top finishes in various marathons and half-marathons, including the 2019 and 2020 Run, the 2019 Marathon, the 2020 Half-Marathon, and the 2019 Marathon. These achievements were supported by official race results and media coverage, which the Director failed to recognize appropriately.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted numerous articles from credible sources such as the Chronicle and Runners World, which highlighted her achievements and the significance of the events she participated in. The Director dismissed these articles, incorrectly assuming they were unreliable because they were published online.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided letters from coaches and experts detailing her contributions to the field of long-distance running. The Director’s decision did not adequately consider these letters or the context in which they were submitted, leading to a misjudgment of the evidence.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner claimed membership in associations that required outstanding achievements. However, the Director did not fully review the supplemental evidence submitted in response to a request for further information.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Official race results: Confirming first-place finishes.
- Media coverage: Articles from reputable sources highlighting the significance of the petitioner’s achievements.
- Letters of support: From coaches and experts detailing the petitioner’s contributions and significance in the field of long-distance running.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision.
Reasoning: The Director applied incorrect standards and did not consider all relevant evidence, leading to a misjudgment of the petitioner’s qualifications under the EB1 Extraordinary Ability criteria.
Next Steps: The Director is instructed to re-evaluate the evidence, considering the petitioner’s appellate brief and supplemental documents, and issue a new decision consistent with the proper evidentiary standards.
