Date of Decision: May 29, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mountain Biker and Cyclist
Field: Sports (Cycling and Mountain Biking)
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Published Material About the Petitioner
The Director determined that the petitioner fulfilled the criterion for published material about him in professional or major trade publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards
The petitioner claimed several awards, including a first-place finish at the 2008 National Downhill Championship, a second-place medal from the 2016 Mountain Bike Series, and participation at the 2015 European Games. However, the evidence did not establish that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The letter from the Cycling Union and the photographs of medals and trophies did not sufficiently demonstrate the national or international significance of these awards.
Criterion 2: Judging the Work of Others
The petitioner referenced eligibility for judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) but did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he met this criterion. The petition did not include documentation demonstrating that the petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in the field of cycling or mountain biking.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed awards from national and international competitions but did not provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that these awards were recognized for excellence in the field. The awards were not sufficiently documented to show their significance or the criteria used for granting them.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Director determined that the petitioner met this criterion by providing published material about him in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable in this case.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he judged the work of others in the field of cycling or mountain biking.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable in this case.
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
Photographs: Photographs of medals and trophies claimed by the petitioner.
Letters: A letter from the Cycling Union confirming the petitioner’s racing results.
Articles and Publications: Documentation of published material about the petitioner.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal 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 cycling and mountain biking. 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.
