Date of Decision: August 11, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Martial Artist
Field: Muay Thai and Kickboxing
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner provided evidence of serving as a referee in Muay Thai and Kickboxing events.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards: The petitioner received several martial arts awards but did not demonstrate their national or international significance.
Published Material: The submitted articles did not meet the criteria for professional or major trade publications or major media, lacking author names and significant circulation statistics.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that his roles had a significant impact or were in organizations with distinguished reputations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner provided evidence of winning several martial arts competitions. However, the evidence did not establish these as nationally or internationally recognized awards. The general criteria and rules of the awarding organizations were provided but were insufficient to demonstrate the significance of the awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted several articles about his work. These articles lacked necessary details such as author names and were not shown to be from major media or professional trade publications. Circulation statistics were provided but not in a comparative context to establish their significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable, as no specific original contributions were highlighted.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a referee at various martial arts events. Documentation included credentials, photographs, and letters confirming his role. However, there was no detailed description of his duties to establish that he evaluated or judged the skills of competitors.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable, as no membership in associations was discussed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable, as no authorship of scholarly articles was discussed.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner claimed leading roles in martial arts organizations but did not provide sufficient evidence of the impact or significance of these roles within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable, as no evidence of high salary or remuneration was discussed.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
Martial Arts Awards Documentation: Included rules and criteria of awarding organizations but lacked evidence of national or international significance.
Articles and Publications: Provided several articles but did not meet the required standards for major media or professional trade publications.
Referee Credentials and Letters: Confirmed the petitioner’s role as a referee but did not detail the judging responsibilities required to meet the criterion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Both the motion to reconsider and the motion to reopen were dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish eligibility based on the criteria and failed to provide convincing new evidence or demonstrate errors in the initial decision.
Next Steps: The petitioner should consider gathering more comprehensive and corroborative evidence to support his claims, focusing on clearly demonstrating how his roles and awards compare to others in his field and establishing the significance of his contributions and recognitions.
