Date of Decision: June 22, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Sports Journalist
Field: Sports Journalism
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging:
- The petitioner fulfilled the criterion of judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material:
- Articles provided did not meet the requirements as they lacked proper authorship, were self-authored, or did not qualify as published material about the petitioner.
- Leading or Critical Role:
- The petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion, but it was not reached due to the failure to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Articles on adevaldes.com and lado.mx were provided but did not meet the criteria as they lacked consistent authorship and did not sufficiently focus on the petitioner’s work.
- Articles on wpbf.com and Milenio did not have clear authorship or relevant content about the petitioner’s work.
- Articles on lanoticia.com and produ.com had proper titles, dates, and authors but failed to establish major media status.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Not applicable.
Participation as a Judge:
- The petitioner met this criterion as evidenced by his judging activities.
Membership in Associations: Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- This criterion was claimed but not evaluated due to failure to meet three initial criteria.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Articles on adevaldes.com and lado.mx: Inconsistent authorship and lack of focus on petitioner’s work.
- Articles on wpbf.com and Milenio: Lack of clear authorship and relevant content.
- Articles on lanoticia.com and produ.com: Proper titles, dates, and authors but insufficient evidence of major media status.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not meet the requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).
- The articles provided did not meet the standards for published material about the petitioner.
- The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for EB1 classification.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner should gather more substantial evidence that clearly demonstrates meeting at least three of the required criteria.
- Ensure that any published material meets the regulatory requirements, including authorship and relevance to the petitioner’s work.
