Date of Decision: March 5, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Actress
Field: Performing Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Director initially concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. The Petitioner provided evidence of serving as a judge for the acting category at the Film Festival in 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The Director’s decision did not thoroughly address the evidence and arguments submitted by the Petitioner in response to the RFE, leading to the decision to remand for further review.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Director initially dismissed this criterion, stating it is limited to the visual arts. However, the appeal decision noted that the criterion can apply to performing artists as well. The Petitioner provided evidence of starring in stage productions and lead roles in films screened at film festivals.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Director’s analysis was found to be insufficient as it did not specifically address the evidence and arguments presented by the Petitioner. The Petitioner provided evidence of performing in leading roles for organizations and establishments with a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that she personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The evidence and arguments regarding this criterion need further review.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about her were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on how the contributions significantly influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a judge for the acting category at the Film Festival, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner performed in leading roles for organizations and establishments with a distinguished reputation, but the initial decision did not thoroughly address this evidence.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner displayed her work at artistic exhibitions and showcases, but the initial decision did not adequately consider this evidence.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included articles that did not meet the standards for major media coverage or were not primarily about the Petitioner.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further review and entry of a new decision.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met one criterion but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Director’s decision lacked detailed analysis and did not fully address the evidence submitted by the Petitioner. A new decision will be made after a thorough review of all the evidence and arguments.
Next Steps: The Director will re-examine the evidence submitted to satisfy the criteria and make a new determination that takes into account the discussions and analyses provided.
