Date of Decision: August 25, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Actor
Field: Film and Television
Nationality: [Not Provided in Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None of the criteria met the evidentiary requirements as determined by the Director and affirmed upon appeal.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner claimed awards for projects he played major roles in but did not provide documentation that these were his awards or that they were recognized for excellence in his field.
Published Material: The petitioner provided snapshots of various websites listing his biography and film credits but did not include titles, dates, or authors of the material, and did not demonstrate these sources as professional or major trade publications.
Participation as a Judge: A letter from a general producer mentioned the petitioner’s role as a casting director and jury member, but lacked specific details and corroborating documentation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to support his claims of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of acting. The diplomas from theater festivals were not demonstrated to be recognized as significant awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted website snapshots listing his biography and film credits. However, these did not meet the requirement of published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as they lacked necessary details like titles, dates, and authors.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not evaluated, as the petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of at least three criteria.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided a letter indicating his participation as a casting director and jury member. However, this letter was broad and lacked specific, detailed, and corroborative information to meet the criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable, as no membership in associations was discussed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable, as no authorship of scholarly articles was discussed.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not evaluated, as the petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of at least three criteria.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable, as no evidence of high salary or remuneration was discussed.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable, as the petitioner did not provide evidence of commercial successes.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Provided letters recognized the petitioner’s roles and contributions but lacked sufficient detail to meet the claimed criteria.
Award Documents: Included claimed awards and diplomas but did not establish their national or international recognition or their significance.
Published Articles: Included website snapshots without necessary details to qualify as major media publications.
Participation Letters: Included a letter about judging roles but lacked specific and detailed corroboration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in his field. The evidence provided was found to be insufficient to establish his eligibility for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive and corroborative evidence to support his claims, focusing on independent recognition and demonstrating how his work has had a significant impact on his field.
