Date of Decision: November 24, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Rowing Coach
Field: Sports Coaching
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in the field, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner played a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed but did not establish that his medals qualify as major, internationally recognized awards. The medals from rowing competitions were not at the national or international level required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner’s membership in professional associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, 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, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s evidence, including letters of recommendation, did not establish original contributions of major significance in the field of rowing, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner’s medals from rowing competitions were recognized but did not meet the level of major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material in major media about him.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, while recognized within the rowing community, did not demonstrate major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge in rowing competitions, meeting this criterion.
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 played a leading role in distinguished rowing organizations, meeting this criterion.
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 medals, letters of recommendation, and evidence of leading roles in rowing organizations. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was 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 medals as major, internationally recognized awards, his published material as major media, or his contributions as of major significance. The Petitioner did not show that his memberships required outstanding achievements or that his contributions were widely recognized.
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.
