Date of Decision: January 25, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Polo Horse Trainer
Field: Athletics
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation
The Petitioner worked for a polo team known for its competitive successes. According to a letter from the team manager, the Petitioner trained the team’s horses and ensured they could withstand competitive pressure, contributing significantly to the team’s numerous wins.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor
The Petitioner has not received any prizes or awards directly. He argued that his trained horses won awards, but he did not present comparable evidence showing his receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
Membership in associations in the field which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts
The Petitioner is a member of a polo association, but it does not satisfy this criterion. His employment with a private polo team was presented as comparable evidence but was not deemed equivalent to membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements.
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought
The Petitioner did not present any published materials directly mentioning his name or his work as a horse trainer. Articles on individual polo players and teams that employed him do not qualify as published material about him.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The Petitioner has not received any direct awards or prizes recognizing his excellence as a horse trainer. His argument that his horses’ awards should be considered was not accepted.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: No published materials directly mention the Petitioner or his work as a horse trainer. Articles about polo players and teams employing him were not sufficient.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Not demonstrated.
Participation as a Judge: Not demonstrated.
Membership in Associations: His membership in a polo association does not meet the required criteria. Employment with a polo team was not considered comparable evidence.
Authorship of scholarly articles: Not demonstrated.
Leading or critical role performed: Demonstrated through his significant contribution to a distinguished polo team’s success.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not demonstrated.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not demonstrated.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts: Not demonstrated.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Professional Polo Players: These letters praised the Petitioner’s skills and contributions but did not meet the specific criteria required.
- Photographs and Online Printouts: Provided as evidence of the Petitioner’s involvement in polo tournaments but did not substantiate claims of awards or published material.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the petition remained denied.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements of demonstrating extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence presented did not satisfy at least three of the ten criteria or provide comparable evidence.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more direct evidence of recognition or achieving the necessary criteria before reapplying.
