Date of Decision: July 18, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Actor
Field: Acting, Music Therapy
Nationality: Iranian-born Swedish
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Lesser Prizes or Awards: The petitioner received the Jury Prize for Best Film at the 2017 International Festival for his role in a film. This festival focused on raising awareness for individuals with disabilities.
- Participation as a Judge of Others’ Work: The petitioner was a U.S. selection judge and a panel judge for the 2018 International Festival.
- Display of Work at Artistic Showcases or Exhibitions: The petitioner’s work was displayed at various film festivals, including the 2017 International Festival, the 2017 Festival in India, and the 2017 Film Festival in Belgium.
- Commercial Successes in Performing Arts: The petitioner acted in commercials for major brands, which resulted in nominations for three awards and winning one. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that these commercials brought national or international acclaim.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About Him and His Work: The submitted articles lacked evidence of circulation, readership, or prestige. Some articles appeared in publications focused on disability awareness rather than acting, and others lacked authorship or were not independently verified.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the petitioner played lead roles in several films and commercials, the evidence did not demonstrate that his contributions brought him national or international acclaim or placed him at the top of his field.
- High Salary in Relation to Others: Although the petitioner provided evidence of his compensation, it did not establish recognition within the field or demonstrate acclaim.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s recognition includes a Jury Prize for Best Film at the 2017 International Festival. However, this award was not deemed sufficient to establish the petitioner as at the top of his field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles from various sources, but many lacked credibility or independent verification of their significance. For example, articles without authors or in publications without demonstrated prestige did not meet the required level of acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed significant contributions through his acting roles, especially in commercials and films. However, the evidence did not support these claims to the extent needed to prove extraordinary ability.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner judged at the 2018 International Festival. However, there was no evidence he participated as a judge in subsequent years or that his judging experience significantly contributed to his acclaim.
Membership in Associations:
Not explicitly mentioned or evidenced in the provided decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable or evidenced in the provided decision.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner performed lead roles in several productions. However, the letters supporting these claims lacked independent evidence or sufficient detail to establish his roles as leading or critical on a national or international level.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner’s work was showcased at several film festivals. However, the prestige of these festivals was not sufficiently established.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Evidence of compensation was provided but did not demonstrate acclaim or extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
While the petitioner’s acting in commercials led to some success, the evidence did not show that this success translated into national or international acclaim.
Supporting Documentation
- Jury Prize Certificate: Recognized the petitioner for his role in the film.
- Articles: Various articles discussing the petitioner’s work, but lacking in evidentiary weight.
- Letters of Recommendation: Letters from colleagues and industry professionals, many of which lacked independent verification or credibility.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or prove that he is among the small percentage at the top of his field. The evidence presented did not meet the high standards required for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence, including independent verification of awards, publications in recognized media, and further proof of leading roles and contributions, before reapplying.
