Date of Decision: August 9, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Ultramarathon Runner
Field: Athletics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards for Excellence:
The Petitioner satisfied the criterion for awards, as he provided evidence of receiving awards in ultramarathon events. Specifically, he presented evidence of a first-place finish at a 2014 ultramarathon, which was recognized by international experts in the field.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided a screenshot from runnersworld.com that mentioned him. However, this material did not qualify as published material about him, as the content was about the event rather than specifically about the Petitioner. Additionally, the Petitioner did not establish that runnersworld.com is a major trade publication or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner claimed that his victory in the 24-hour race at the 2014 event and setting a record were original contributions. However, he did not provide evidence that this record had not been broken, nor did he demonstrate how this achievement qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner provided an updated letter from the founder of an ultrarunning organization, stating that his ranking and win at the Icarus event led to an honorary position. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that this honorary position was equivalent to membership in an organization that requires outstanding achievements.
Leading or Critical Role for Organizations with Distinguished Reputations:
The Petitioner claimed a critical role based on his consulting position with an ultrarunning organization. However, he did not provide evidence of his contributions in this role or demonstrate that the organization has a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received several awards in ultramarathon events, including a first-place finish in a 2014 race. These awards were recognized by international experts, but additional evidence was needed to fully establish their significance.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials provided were not sufficient to meet the criteria for published material. The content focused on events rather than the Petitioner, and the publication was not established as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were praised but not demonstrated to be of major significance. The evidence lacked specific examples of how his work significantly influenced the field of ultramarathon running.
Participation as a Judge:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s honorary position did not meet the criterion for membership in an organization requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable based on the field of ultramarathon running.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s consulting role was critical to the organization’s success or that the organization had a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable based on the field of ultramarathon running.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable based on the field of ultramarathon running.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters from professionals, evidence of awards, articles, and screenshots from various websites. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner’s recognition or meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation includes specific details about the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
