Date of Decision: SEPT. 3, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Competitive Weightlifter
Field: Weightlifting
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards and Prizes: The Petitioner presented documentation indicating receipt of nationally recognized awards for excellence in weightlifting, such as winning first place in 2014. This criterion was met.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner provided evidence of membership in weightlifting teams, but it was determined that these memberships were not based on outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts. The Director’s determination on this issue was withdrawn.
Published Materials: The Petitioner submitted newspaper articles from Lelo and People’s Education. However, these publications were not demonstrated to be major media. The evidence was insufficient to meet this criterion.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner provided evidence of serving as a referee at weightlifting tournaments. However, the duties of a referee were not shown to involve judging the work of others in a manner that meets the regulatory requirements.
Original Contributions: The Petitioner submitted letters praising his weightlifting skills and achievements. However, these letters lacked specific examples of original contributions of major significance to the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner won first place in 2014, which was recognized as a nationally significant award in weightlifting.
Key quotes or references: “The record supports the Director’s determination that the Petitioner meets this regulatory criterion.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The articles in Lelo and People’s Education were not demonstrated to be from major media.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: Letters of recommendation did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner’s contributions were of major significance.
Key quotes or references: “Without sufficient evidence demonstrating that his work constitutes original contributions of major significance, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion.”
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The duties of a referee were not shown to involve judging the work of others in the same or allied field.
Key quotes or references: “Without further evidence that the Petitioner’s refereeing duties involved judging the work of others, he has not met this criterion.”
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Recommendation: Provided by various weightlifting experts, praising the Petitioner’s skills and achievements but lacking specific examples of contributions.
Media Kit: Submitted for Lelo and People’s Education, but insufficient to establish them as major media.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that satisfy at least three of the ten criteria. The totality of the evidence did not support the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence and documentation to address the criteria not met before reapplying.
