Date of Decision: August 27, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Martial Artist
Field: Martial Arts
Nationality: [Not Provided in Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None of the criteria were met according to the Director and Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) findings.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field.
Published Material: The petitioner submitted articles and materials, but they did not meet the regulatory requirements as they were not found to be from professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field of martial arts.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s memberships in professional associations were not demonstrated to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner claimed a leading or critical role in his organizations, but the evidence did not adequately establish these roles as leading or critical for the organizations’ overall success.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his salary was significantly high relative to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve commercial successes in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Judicial Proceeding Statement:
The petitioner’s motion did not include a required statement about whether the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceedings. This omission means the petitioner’s motions did not meet the applicable requirements.
Motion to Reconsider:
The petitioner submitted a brief repeating previous arguments made on appeal without demonstrating how the AAO improperly adjudicated the appeal or incorrectly applied law or policy. This did not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider.
Motion to Reopen:
The petitioner did not present new facts or documentary evidence to support the motion to reopen. Instead, the petitioner mirrored arguments made in his previous appeal, which does not constitute “new facts.”
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reconsider and reopen were denied.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the AAO incorrectly dismissed his appeal, nor did he provide new facts or evidence to establish that he fulfilled at least three of the evidentiary criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The petitioner must consider providing new and relevant evidence or addressing the legal and policy aspects of the decision if intending to pursue further actions.
