Date of Decision: May 31, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Tennis Athlete and Coach
Field: Athletics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i):
The petitioner was a member of the men’s tennis team at [university], which won the championship in 2011 and was the runner-up in 2012. These team awards can be considered to have been received by the petitioner as a contributing member of the team.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii):
The petitioner provided evidence of membership in various coaching associations. However, the record did not demonstrate that these organizations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts for membership.
Published Material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii):
The petitioner submitted an article from a daily newspaper serving the Spanish city and province of [city]. While the article focused on the petitioner’s career transition from a player to a coach, the evidence did not establish that the newspaper is considered a professional or major trade publication or major media.
Leading or Critical Role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii):
The petitioner claimed to have played a crucial role in his tennis team. However, the evidence did not provide sufficient details beyond stating that he was a key contributor. There was no detailed explanation of how his contributions were of significant importance compared to his teammates.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner won multiple team awards as a member of the men’s tennis team at [university]. These include a national championship in 2011 and a runner-up position in 2012.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
An article was published about the petitioner in a local Spanish newspaper, focusing on his career as a tennis player and coach. However, the newspaper was not established as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner was a member of various coaching associations, but these memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s role in his tennis team was described as crucial, but the evidence lacked specific details to support the claim of a leading or critical role.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several pieces of evidence, including:
Photographs of the team and award plaques.
A letter from the Director of Athletics.
An article posted on the university’s website.
Letters from the parents of tennis players he coached.
Letters from a player currently competing at the collegiate level.
Certificates of coaching certifications.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet the initial criteria required for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. While the petitioner demonstrated significant contributions as part of a team, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this classification.
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.
