Date of Decision: November 1, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Supplemental Horse Trainer
- Field: Horse Training
- Nationality: [Nationality not provided]
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary played a leading or critical role in their field of horse training.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards: The petitioner did not establish the beneficiary’s receipt of a major, internationally recognized award.
- Memberships: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence for membership in associations.
- Published Material: The petitioner did not meet the requirement for published material about the beneficiary.
- Comparable Evidence: The Director did not consider the comparable evidence submitted by the petitioner.
Key Points from the Decision
- Awards and Prizes Won: The Director concluded that the petitioner did not establish the receipt of a major, internationally recognized award.
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner claimed eligibility for awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) but failed to meet the requirements.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner claimed eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) but did not provide sufficient evidence.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Not addressed.
- Participation as a Judge: Not addressed.
- Membership in Associations:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner claimed eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) but did not provide sufficient evidence.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not addressed.
- Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner demonstrated the beneficiary’s leading or critical role in their field.
- Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
- Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not addressed.
- Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- The petitioner submitted various documents supporting the beneficiary’s eligibility. However, the Director did not consider the comparable evidence provided.
Conclusion
- Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for a new decision.
- Reasoning: The Director did not consider the petitioner’s arguments for comparable evidence under the claimed criteria.
- Next Steps: The Director must determine whether the claimed criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary’s occupation and evaluate whether the evidence is truly comparable.
