Date of Decision: September 11, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Professional Pickleball Player
Field: Sports – Pickleball
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria but satisfied only one, as determined by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).
Criteria Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- The petitioner provided evidence of receiving recognized prizes for excellence in pickleball, which met the requirements for this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner submitted links to televised matches, a YouTube interview, and an online article. However, the evidence lacked transcripts and sufficient proof of publication in major trade or professional media.
- Evidence of High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration:
- Although the petitioner submitted documentation of tournament earnings and sponsorships, there was no comparative evidence to establish these earnings as significantly high relative to peers in the same field.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Claims of professional rankings and sponsorships were provided but failed to demonstrate field-wide impact or contributions of major significance to pickleball.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role:
- The petitioner claimed prominent roles in pickleball tournaments but did not establish that these roles were performed for distinguished organizations or had significant impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Material and Sponsorships:
- The evidence provided did not demonstrate sufficient prominence or relevance to meet the criteria for published material or high remuneration.
Original Contributions:
- Claims of major significance were not supported with evidence showing sustained or field-wide impact.
Final Merits Determination Not Conducted:
- Since the petitioner did not meet at least three regulatory criteria, a final merits determination was not performed.
Supporting Documentation
Award Evidence: Recognized prizes for pickleball excellence.
Published Material Evidence: Links to televised matches and an online article, lacking corroborative details.
Remuneration Evidence: Tournament earnings and sponsorships, not demonstrated as significantly high.
Contribution Evidence: Claims of professional rankings and sponsorships, lacking field-wide impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met one regulatory criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of pickleball.
