Date of Decision: May 13, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Actress
Field: Acting
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Petitioner claimed to have authored a book published in September 2019. However, it was determined that this did not satisfy the criterion as the book was not considered a scholarly article in the acting field nor a professional or major trade publication.
New Evidence of Professional Engagements: New evidence included the petitioner’s work on a YouTube channel and participation in various events and podcasts in 2020. However, this evidence was not considered as it post-dated the filing and did not meet the initial evidence requirements.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards or Prizes: No evidence provided that met this criterion.
Published Material in Major Media: The petitioner did not provide sufficient published material in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: No evidence was presented to meet this criterion.
Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Organizations or Establishments with Distinguished Reputations: Insufficient evidence to support this claim.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No awards or prizes were documented that met the evidentiary criteria.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The self-published e-book did not qualify as a major media publication or a scholarly article.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No significant contributions were evidenced in the provided documentation.
Participation as a Judge:
No evidence was presented regarding the petitioner serving as a judge.
Membership in Associations:
No documentation of membership in associations was provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The book published in 2019 did not meet the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of performing in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
There was no evidence of artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence was presented regarding high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
No evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts was provided.
Supporting Documentation
Evidence included new engagements in 2020 such as a YouTube channel and various event participations.
The brief in support of the motion to reconsider was almost identical to previous submissions and did not address specific errors in the prior decisions.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to establish eligibility by not meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. New evidence did not relate to the initial grounds for denial or pre-date the filing of the petition. The motion to reconsider did not specify errors in the prior decision or provide new relevant arguments.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering and submitting additional documentation that directly addresses the initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance on fulfilling the EB1 extraordinary ability requirements might be beneficial.
