Date of Decision: NOV. 12, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Single Combat Turon Coach
Field: Sports Coaching and Training
Nationality: Uzbekistan
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- [None]
Criteria Not Met:
- Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field: The petitioner provided evidence of winning first place in several national tournaments. However, the significance of these awards and their recognition at the national or international level was not sufficiently demonstrated.
- Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field which require outstanding achievements: The petitioner claimed membership based on his coaching status, but did not show that such membership was based on judged outstanding achievements.
- Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media: The petitioner provided articles and TV programs about his work. However, the required authors, titles, and detailed evidence to prove major media status were missing.
- Evidence of the alien’s participation as a judge of the work of others: The petitioner provided evidence of his role as a judge in national tournaments. However, the duties and significance of this role were not sufficiently proven.
- Evidence of the alien’s original contributions of major significance: The petitioner co-authored several training manuals, but did not demonstrate their major significance in the field.
- Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner submitted scholarly articles but did not prove that they were published in major trade publications or other major media.
- Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation: The petitioner’s role in his organization was described, but it was not proven to be leading or critical for the organization overall, nor was the distinguished reputation of the organization established.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
While some articles were about the petitioner, they did not meet the regulatory requirements for major trade publications, and important details were missing.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s training manuals and coaching achievements were acknowledged, but their impact on the overall field was not demonstrated to be of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The evidence provided did not sufficiently prove that the petitioner’s role as a judge met the regulatory requirements.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s membership based on coaching achievements did not meet the standards for outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s articles were not demonstrated to be in major trade publications or other major media.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner’s role was not sufficiently proven to be leading or critical for his organization, nor was the distinguished reputation of the organization established.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates and diplomas of awards won by the petitioner and his trainees.
- Articles from various publications and transcripts from television programs.
- Letters of recommendation and testimonials regarding the petitioner’s coaching achievements.
- English translations of training manuals co-authored by the petitioner.
- Documentation of the petitioner’s role and achievements as a coach.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence criteria nor demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in the field. The significance of his work was not proven to be at the level required for the EB1 extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider providing more detailed and substantial evidence that clearly meets the regulatory criteria and demonstrates the extraordinary ability and national or international recognition in the field.
