Date of Decision: AUG. 23, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Art Curator
Field: Art and Architecture
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
(iv) Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner served on juries for art exhibitions and competitions, fulfilling this criterion.
(vii) Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases:
The petitioner demonstrated evidence of displaying work at artistic exhibitions.
Criteria Not Met:
(i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
The petitioner received a regional award at the International Biennial of Architecture, which did not meet the criterion of national or international recognition.
(iii) Published material about the individual in professional or major media:
The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the published materials met the standards of major trade publications or major media.
(viii) Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments:
While the petitioner had a leading role in her own architectural studio, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the studio had a distinguished reputation.
(ix) High remuneration for services:
The petitioner did not provide adequate documentation to substantiate the claim of commanding a high salary in comparison to peers in the same field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings:
The regional nature of the award from the International Biennial of Architecture did not fulfill the criterion for national or international recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings:
The articles provided did not meet the requirements of major trade publications or major media, and some were dated after the petition’s filing date.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
No significant evidence was provided to demonstrate major contributions to the field that had a substantial impact.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner served on juries for art exhibitions, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s leadership in her own studio did not demonstrate the required distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s participation in art exhibitions met this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s salary comparison lacked sufficient documentation to establish it was significantly high in relation to peers.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Membership:
Documentation provided included letters indicating jury service for art exhibitions but lacked the necessary evidence for other claimed criteria. - Published Articles:
Articles from Deco & Arquitectura and La Cara Buena del Mundo were submitted but did not qualify as major trade publications or major media. - Expert Letters:
Letters supporting the petition did not adequately demonstrate the required acclaim and recognition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that fulfill at least three of the ten lesser criteria. The totality of the material provided did not support a conclusion that the petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner consider alternative visa classifications or provide additional evidence addressing the deficiencies noted in the appeal decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here.
