Date of Decision: May 28, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Martial Artist
Field: Martial Arts (Karate)
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards
The petitioner provided evidence that he received lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, including the [award name] for his participation in various martial arts competitions.
Criterion 2: Membership in Associations that Require Outstanding Achievements
The petitioner demonstrated that he held memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements, such as the Armenian Karate Federation, which recognized his significant accomplishments in the field of martial arts.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Published Material About the Petitioner
The petitioner claimed to have published material about him in professional or major trade publications. However, the provided evidence, such as a news story on Pan Armenian TV and articles in local newspapers, did not meet the criterion’s requirements. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient viewership statistics, details of the interview, or circulation data to establish that these publications were major media.
Criterion 2: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner claimed that his contributions to martial arts were of major significance. However, the letters of support and other evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the widespread impact or implementation of his contributions in the field.
Criterion 3: Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that he performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations. The reference letters and other documentation did not adequately describe the beneficiary’s leading or critical roles at an organizational level or establish the distinguished reputation of the Armenian national karate team.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed to have received several awards for his participation in martial arts competitions, but the evidence did not establish that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided a transcript of a news story about him on Pan Armenian TV and an article in a local university newspaper. However, the evidence did not meet the criterion’s requirements for published material in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions to martial arts were of major significance. The support letters lacked detailed information on the impact of his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner demonstrated that he held memberships in associations requiring outstanding achievements, such as the Armenian Karate Federation.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that he held leading or critical roles within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
News Story Transcript: A transcript of a news story about the petitioner on Pan Armenian TV.
Articles and Publications: An article in a local university newspaper.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and organizations detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Membership Information: Documentation of memberships in various martial arts associations.
Award Documentation: Information about the awards claimed by the petitioner.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. The evidence submitted did not establish national or international recognition of his achievements or demonstrate major contributions to the field of martial arts. The petitioner did not show that his professional accomplishments placed him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The motion to reopen did not establish an incorrect application of law or policy in the previous decision.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on awards with national or international recognition, significant contributions, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
