Date of Decision: February 13, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Professional Swimmer
Field: Athletics
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor.
The Petitioner provided evidence in the form of photographs and official statistics indicating that he won numerous medals, which was accepted by the Director.
Criterion 2: Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields.
The Petitioner demonstrated membership in multiple swim teams, which was accepted as meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: 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 submitted an article from a Lithuanian website, but it lacked the author’s name, and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the website qualified as a major media outlet.
Criterion 2: Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
The Petitioner provided letters from coaches and the president of swim teams, but the documentation was deemed insufficient to establish that his role was leading or critical or that the teams had a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner satisfied this criterion by providing evidence of winning numerous medals in swimming competitions.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The submitted article did not meet the regulatory requirements due to missing author information and insufficient evidence that the publication qualified as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not discussed in detail, but the overall conclusion indicates that the evidence provided did not support meeting this criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner met this criterion by proving membership in multiple swim teams requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role.
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 photographs, official statistics, articles, and letters from coaches and team presidents. The evidence of medals and team memberships was accepted, but the documentation for published materials and leading roles was insufficient.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. Despite meeting the criteria for awards and memberships, the evidence for published materials and leading roles did not meet the regulatory standards.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and comprehensive evidence to support any future petitions, ensuring all regulatory requirements are met and documented thoroughly.
