Date of Decision: January 9, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Trek and Mountaineering Expedition Leader
Field: Mountaineering
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: None
The petitioner did not meet any of the required criteria according to the decision.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Membership in Associations
The petitioner claimed membership in the Nepal Mountaineering Association and another unspecified organization. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Criterion 2: Published Material About the Petitioner
The petitioner submitted several articles and publications. However, many of these did not meet translation certification requirements or were not primarily about the petitioner. Additionally, some sources were not verified as major trade publications or other major media.
Criterion 3: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner provided letters from colleagues praising his skills and contributions, such as his involvement in rescue missions and setting climbing routes. However, the letters did not provide detailed, specific information demonstrating how these contributions were of major significance to the field of mountaineering.
Criterion 4: Leading or Critical Role
The petitioner claimed a leading or critical role for organizations such as a mountaineering training program and a guiding company. While the letters confirmed his employment and roles, they did not establish that these roles significantly influenced the organizations’ outcomes or demonstrated a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Several articles were submitted but did not meet the criteria for published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, including rescue missions and technical climbing work, were praised but not shown to be of major significance to the field.
Participation as a Judge: Not applicable
Membership in Associations:
The memberships claimed did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The roles claimed were not sufficiently demonstrated to be leading or critical within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
Membership Cards: Evidence of membership in mountaineering associations.
Reference Letters: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions.
Articles and Publications: Various articles about the petitioner’s work and achievements.
Employment Records: Documentation of roles and responsibilities with different mountaineering organizations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. The evidence submitted did not establish national or international recognition of his achievements or demonstrate major contributions to the field of mountaineering. The petitioner did not show that his professional accomplishments placed him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on awards with national or international recognition, significant contributions, and other achievements that demonstrate his standing at the top of the field. Reapplying or exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
