Date of Decision: December 21, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Sitting Volleyball Coach
Field: Athletics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner served as a judge for athletes from 2006 to 2013, and evaluated national and international exhibitions, satisfying this criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The petitioner provided a letter of appointment from an association, but did not include supporting documentation showing that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner claimed to have discovered a significant gap in art history and facilitated the donation of an art collection to American museums. However, the record did not contain sufficient evidence to support this claim as a major contribution. The contributions described were potential future contributions, not realized ones, thus failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner submitted an essay about an artist, but did not establish that the art catalogue in which it was published is a professional or major trade publication, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Display of Work: The petitioner claimed to have displayed her work by setting up exhibitions and co-owning a gallery. However, the evidence provided did not detail the exhibits or the petitioner’s role, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not demonstrate that she had performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. The expectation of future contributions does not fulfill this requirement, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner documented his receipt of a gold medal as a player at the 1990 championships, which is recognized nationally and internationally for excellence, meeting this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s work was discussed in several major media publications, but the translations did not include necessary details such as the title, date, author, or publication. Additionally, the articles focused on the team rather than the petitioner individually.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field of sitting volleyball. The claimed contributions were future contributions, not realized ones.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a judge for athletes and evaluated exhibitions, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his membership in an association required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s essay did not meet the criteria for publication in a professional or major trade publication.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner’s evidence did not detail the exhibits or her role sufficiently to meet this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates and Awards: Documentation of the petitioner’s receipt of a gold medal in 1990.
- Articles and Publications: Various articles featuring the petitioner’s work, but lacking necessary details and focusing on the team rather than the petitioner individually.
- Letters of Support: Letters from colleagues and supervisors, but lacking specific examples of significant impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required criteria for EB-1 classification. Despite notable achievements, the petitioner did not establish the level of extraordinary ability required. The evidence provided did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance or a leading or critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Next Steps: The petitioner should consider reapplying with additional evidence or exploring other visa categories that may better suit her qualifications and achievements.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
