All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that they met the criteria for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)) and participation as a judge of the work of others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)). For awards, the evidence presented was deemed regional, local, or employer-based, lacking national or international recognition. For judging, the evidence consisted of a vague letter and an inconsistent website printout, failing to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Even if the Petitioner had met the other two claimed criteria (published material and artistic exhibitions), they would still not have met the minimum three criteria required.

The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy for reconsideration, and did not provide new facts for reopening. Specifically, the petitioner's kickboxing awards, including a second place at a World Championship, were not deemed major, internationally recognized one-time achievements comparable to a Nobel Prize or Olympic medal. Furthermore, the petitioner's claim of membership in the Ukrainian national sports team and 'Master of Sports of Ukraine' recognition did not meet the membership criterion, as no evidence of selective requirements judged by national or international experts was provided.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of weapons development/forensics. Despite providing evidence of awards (almost two dozen government commendations), memberships (Expert Qualification Commission), judging roles (deputy editor-in-chief for four issues), publications (3 book chapters, 2 monographs, 12 articles), a patent, 8 standards, recommendation letters, and salary, USCIS found the evidence insufficient to meet the high standard. Specifically, the awards were internal government honors, memberships and judging roles lacked evidence of national/international recognition, publications lacked impact/citation history, the patent/standards lacked demonstrated significance, and letters/salary did not establish widespread acclaim or top-tier standing.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner met only two of the three required initial evidentiary criteria (awards and published material). The 'Master of Sports of Ukraine' certificate did not satisfy the membership criterion as it did not grant membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements. Furthermore, the Petitioner's athletic achievements, including NCAA Division II honors and a 2011 long-distance swim, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

The Petitioner met only two criteria (judging and published material) instead of the required three. The Forbes '30 Under 30' list was considered published material but not a recognized prize or award. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance or widespread adoption in the hospitality field, and memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts.