Date of Decision: June 14, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Taekwondo Athlete
Field: Athletics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i):
The petitioner provided evidence of receiving a gold medal at the 2016 [event] and a bronze medal at the 2015 [event].
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii):
The petitioner submitted screenshots and transcripts from news.tj and other sources, but these did not meet the necessary requirements such as the inclusion of author names and titles.
Judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv):
The petitioner provided evidence of refereeing at several events, but did not sufficiently document the duties performed or demonstrate that these roles qualified as judging the work of others in the same field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed victories over elite athletes, receiving a gold medal in 2016 and a bronze medal in 2015. However, these awards were not deemed to be major, internationally recognized awards as required.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The evidence provided from news.tj and other sources was insufficient due to missing author information and titles, and did not meet the published material criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not present new evidence or reference any precedents to support his claim of making original contributions of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided certificates and documentation of refereeing events, but these did not establish the level of authority or duties that would qualify as judging the work of others under the regulatory criteria.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable based on the evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his refereeing roles were equivalent to a leading or critical role as defined by the regulations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several pieces of evidence, including:
A brief stating new facts to establish eligibility.
Evidence of ineffective assistance from previous attorneys.
An explanation of the steps to file a complaint with the Florida Bar and correspondence related to this complaint.
Letters indicating the complaints were forwarded to the Florida Bar’s branch office for consideration.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider are denied.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework and Lozada. The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not include a detailed description of agreements with the former attorneys, and there was no evidence that former counsels’ actions prejudiced the outcome of the proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the benefit sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider consulting with new legal counsel to explore any further options for appeal or other immigration benefits for which he may be eligible.
