Date of Decision: October 19, 2022
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:
None: The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
1. Evidence of receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence: Not met. The petitioner did not provide evidence of such awards.
2. Evidence of membership in associations in the field which require outstanding achievements of their members: Not met. The petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in such associations.
3. Evidence of published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media: Not met. The petitioner did not provide sufficient published material.
4. Evidence of participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization: Not met. The petitioner did not provide evidence of such participation.
5. Evidence of original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field: Not met. The petitioner did not provide evidence of such contributions.
6. Evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media: Not met. The petitioner did not provide evidence of such authorship.
7. Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation: Not met. The petitioner did not provide evidence of such employment.
8. Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field: Not met. The petitioner did not provide evidence of commanding a high salary.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate the receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in their field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The evidence provided was not sufficient to meet the criteria for published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of original contributions of major significance in the field of martial arts.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of employment in a critical or essential capacity for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable. No evidence provided related to artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of commanding a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable. No evidence provided related to commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- Affidavits and Other Documentary Evidence: The petitioner did not submit new evidence or state new facts to support the motion to reopen.
- Prior Submissions: The petitioner repeated previous assertions from prior submissions, which did not overcome the earlier conclusions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider are both dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide new evidence or identify specific errors in the previous decisions. The evidence provided did not meet the required criteria for the classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider seeking additional evidence or legal counsel to better prepare future motions or appeals.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 23414566
Document: OCT192022_01B2203
