Date of Decision: AUG 10, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Martial Artist
Field: Martial Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor.
The petitioner submitted certificates and other documentation claiming multiple national awards. However, these were found to be inconsistent or unverifiable.
Criteria Not Met:
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
The petitioner submitted several articles and advertisements, but they were not specifically about him, lacked proper translations, or were published after the filing date.
Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought.
The petitioner submitted certificates of appreciation, but there was insufficient evidence to verify his role as a judge.
Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
The petitioner’s performances and demonstrations were not considered equivalent to the display of work in the visual arts.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
The petitioner provided a letter of support and program books, but these did not sufficiently demonstrate a leading or critical role.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner provided certificates that were inconsistent and unverifiable. The logos on the certificates did not match the official logos of the issuing bodies.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: Submitted articles and advertisements did not specifically mention the petitioner or were published after the filing date.
- Key quotes or references: “The plain language of the regulation requires ‘published material about the alien.'”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable, as there was no evidence submitted to support this criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s certificates of appreciation were not substantiated by evidence of the specific work he judged.
- Key quotes or references: “Submitting certificates of appreciation without evidence demonstrating whose work the petitioner judged is insufficient.”
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable, as there was no evidence submitted to support this criterion.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable, as there was no evidence submitted to support this criterion.
Leading or critical role performed:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s role in the circus was not demonstrated to be leading or critical.
- Key quotes or references: “The submitted documentation does not differentiate the petitioner from the other circus performers.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s performances did not meet the regulatory criterion for artistic exhibitions or showcases.
- Key quotes or references: “Performances by a performing artist do not fall under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).”
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable, as there was no evidence submitted to support this criterion.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable, as there was no evidence submitted to support this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates: Multiple certificates submitted, but found inconsistent and unverifiable.
- Articles and Advertisements: Numerous articles and advertisements, but most were not about the petitioner or published after the filing date.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of at least three regulatory criteria. There were significant inconsistencies in the submitted evidence, and the petitioner did not demonstrate the necessary level of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The petitioner may file a motion to reconsider or reopen the proceeding using Form I-290B.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
