Date of Decision: September 30, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Security Manager and Fitness Trainer
Field: Security and Athletic Training
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 under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner met one criterion but failed to establish eligibility for EB-1 classification.
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner demonstrated serving as one of nine judges at a competition in 2014, evaluating athletes based on detailed criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- The petitioner provided a 2021 diploma and a letter of appreciation for service in internal affairs but failed to demonstrate that these honors reflected national or international recognition in the field.
- Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements:
- Evidence of memberships in the Kazakhstan Federation of Boxing and the Hand-to-Hand Combat Federation failed to demonstrate that these associations required outstanding achievements for admission.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- While the petitioner provided evidence of a hand-to-hand fighting methodology, corroborating letters failed to show substantial influence or major significance beyond the immediate organizations involved.
- Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- The petitioner cited a master class on fighting skills but did not establish its qualification as an artistic exhibition or showcase under EB-1 regulations.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- The petitioner provided evidence of roles in various organizations but did not demonstrate that these organizations had a distinguished reputation or that his roles were critical to their success.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Membership Evidence:
- Honors received were deemed specific to employment or military service, lacking broader national or international recognition.
- Memberships in professional organizations lacked evidence of rigorous entry criteria based on outstanding achievements.
Contributions and Leadership:
- The petitioner’s methodology was recognized internally but did not demonstrate a significant field-wide impact.
- Leadership roles were not associated with organizations demonstrated to have a distinguished reputation.
Final Merits Determination:
- The AAO concluded that the petitioner’s evidence did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1 classification.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Evidence: Documentation of judging athletic competitions in 2014.
Award Evidence: Diplomas and letters of appreciation, insufficient to demonstrate recognition of excellence.
Membership Evidence: Memberships in athletic organizations, not proven to require outstanding achievements.
Contribution Evidence: Letters describing a training methodology, lacking corroboration of field-wide significance.
Leadership Evidence: Roles in security and athletic organizations, not linked to distinguished entities.
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 provided failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of security and athletic training.
