Date of Decision: April 11, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Sailing Competitor and Coach
Field: Sailing
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards Criterion: The Petitioner met the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) by demonstrating receipt of a major, internationally recognized award.
Judging Criterion: The Petitioner satisfied the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) by providing evidence of having been a judge of the work of others in the field of sailing.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership Criterion: The Petitioner did not meet the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The AAO disagreed with the initial finding by the Director that the Petitioner met this criterion.
Published Materials Criterion: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the published materials criterion.
Original Contributions Criterion: The evidence provided did not establish that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The AAO acknowledged that the Petitioner met the awards criterion by demonstrating receipt of a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The AAO found the evidence submitted for published materials about the Petitioner insufficient to meet the criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The AAO concluded that the Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence of original contributions of major significance in the field of sailing.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner satisfied the judging criterion by proving she had been a judge of the work of others in the field of sailing.
Membership in Associations: The AAO did not find the Petitioner’s evidence sufficient to meet the membership criterion.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various documents to support her claims, including evidence of awards, judging participation, and attempts to meet other criteria. However, these documents were deemed insufficient to overturn the previous denials.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider is denied.
Reasoning: The AAO concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the previous decisions were based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The Petitioner also failed to provide new, pertinent precedent decisions, statutes, or regulations to support her motion.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider seeking legal advice to explore other immigration options or to better address the criteria for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification in any future petitions.
