Date of Decision: OCT 23, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Trek and Expedition Guide
Field: Mountaineering
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner demonstrated that he played a leading or critical role as a mountain guide for an organization that organizes treks in Nepal and Tibet. The Petitioner was employed from 2004 through 2014 and was a critical guide on many climbs, fulfilling the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in an association that requires reaching the summit of Mt. Everest at least once. However, the evidence did not establish that the membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts in the field of mountaineering, failing the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The Petitioner submitted an article from a local publication and a blog post. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these were major trade publications or other major media. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner provided letters attesting to his contributions in setting ropes and routes on Mt. Everest and his search and rescue efforts. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these contributions had major significance in the field of mountaineering as a whole, failing the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: The Petitioner submitted articles, but they did not qualify as major trade publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The Petitioner’s contributions, while significant within specific expeditions, did not demonstrate the required level of major significance or widespread impact in the field of mountaineering.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: The Petitioner’s membership did not meet the criterion as it did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: The Petitioner’s role as a mountain guide met this criterion. However, the evidence did not sufficiently establish the distinguished reputation of the organization.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s work in mountaineering.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field of mountaineering.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner met one of the ten criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of his contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.