Date of Decision: APR. 23, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architectural Designer
Field: Arts
Nationality:
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The petitioner served on an eleven-member panel judging architectural design proposals.
Display: Specific details not mentioned, met by default in the appeal review.
Leading or Critical Role: Participated in significant projects or productions in a leading or critical capacity.
Criteria Not Met:
Other Criteria: The final merits determination focused primarily on the judging criterion without adequate consideration of other evidence which led to the remand.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No specific awards or prizes mentioned; focus was on her role within the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not specified in the decision, though general acknowledgment in the field is implied.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No detailed contributions were discussed in the decision.
Participation as a Judge:
Participation noted but deemed insufficient in terms of demonstrating sustained acclaim. The decision critiqued the lack of evidence showing that the petitioner actually judged work rather than merely participated in organizational aspects.
Membership in Associations:
Not addressed in the appeal documents.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not specified.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Acknowledged but not detailed beyond her involvement in major projects.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not specified.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not mentioned in the documents reviewed.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable as the field is architectural design.
Supporting Documentation
The supporting documents primarily included evidence of the petitioner’s participation in judging panels and leadership roles in significant projects. Additional documentation submitted on appeal was intended to reinforce these aspects but was not detailed in the decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case is remanded for further review and a more comprehensive evaluation of all submitted evidence.
Reasoning:
The decision was remanded due to insufficient consideration of the totality of evidence, particularly the underassessment of contributions and roles that align with sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The petitioner is advised to provide more comprehensive evidence highlighting sustained acclaim and significant contributions to the field, ensuring all criteria are addressed thoroughly.
