Date of Decision: November 27, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Martial Arts Athlete
Field: Martial Arts
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None specified in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The evidence provided included altered images and unverified claims, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his memberships in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. The evidence lacked official rules or documentation describing the selection process, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Published Material: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material in major media about him. The new evidence submitted post-dated the petition and could not establish eligibility at the time of filing, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. The claims of critical roles were not supported by verifiable evidence of the organization’s distinguished status or the significance of the Petitioner’s role, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The claims were not supported by verifiable documentation.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material in major media about him. The evidence submitted was either unverifiable or post-dated the filing of the petition.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s roles were not sufficiently documented to demonstrate leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation and claims of awards. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not establish his awards as nationally or internationally recognized, his published material as major media, or his roles as leading or critical in distinguished organizations. The Petitioner did not show that his contributions were widely recognized or had significant impact on his field. The evidence submitted post-dated the petition and could not establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
