Date of Decision: April 26, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Speed Skater and Coach
Field: Athletics
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner demonstrated participation as a judge at athletics competitions, fulfilling one of the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient credible evidence of having received nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The evidence submitted did not adequately demonstrate that the Petitioner was the subject of published material in major trade publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not sufficiently prove that their contributions have had a major, significant impact in the field of athletics.
Membership in Associations:
Membership evidence was not sufficient to prove that the Petitioner’s membership in associations required outstanding achievements.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not provide adequate information to demonstrate that their roles in organizations were leading or critical to the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of authoring scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to the field of athletics.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not submit adequate evidence to prove that they command a high salary or other significant remuneration in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to the field of athletics.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not meet this criterion due to a lack of credible evidence of awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials submitted did not meet the standard for demonstrating the Petitioner’s recognition in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, while significant, were not proven to have major impact.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner fulfilled this criterion by participating as a judge at athletics competitions.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships did not sufficiently demonstrate the required level of acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not submit evidence of authoring significant scholarly articles.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner submitted a motion to reopen and reconsider, including a copy of an email and a brief statement. However, the Petitioner did not contest or mention the prior decision in the statement, nor did they provide new facts or cite binding precedent decisions to establish that the prior decision was incorrect based on law or USCIS policy. The submitted evidence did not meet the requirements to support a motion to reopen or reconsider.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen is denied, and the motion to reconsider is also denied.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The submitted evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim. Additionally, the motions failed to provide new facts or legal arguments to justify reopening or reconsidering the case.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must gather substantial and verifiable evidence of their extraordinary ability and sustained acclaim in the field of athletics if they wish to reapply. Future petitions should include detailed documentation that meets the required criteria to avoid similar denials.
