Date of Decision: August 23, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Art Curator
Field: Architecture and Art Curation
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases:
The petitioner provided sufficient evidence to show that her work was displayed at artistic exhibitions, meeting the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner served as a jury member at the Municipal Museum of Art and another exhibition, fulfilling the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
The petitioner claimed to have won a prize at the International Biennial of Architecture, but did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the prize is nationally or internationally recognized.
Published material about the petitioner:
The petitioner provided articles about her work, but did not establish that the publications were major trade publications or other major media.
Leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that her architectural studio or other roles were for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her earnings were significantly high compared to others in her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s award at the International Biennial of Architecture was not demonstrated to be nationally or internationally recognized.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not established that the Prize is nationally or internationally recognized.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s articles did not establish that the publications were major trade publications or other major media.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not established that Deco & Arquitectura is a major trade publication.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner served as a jury member at multiple exhibitions.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others, satisfying the criterion.”
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not demonstrate that her roles were for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not established that she has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s work was displayed at artistic exhibitions.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has satisfied the criterion pertaining to display at artistic exhibitions.”
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of high salary or remuneration.
- Key quotes or references: “The letter does not provide enough information to make the comparison that the regulatory language demands.”
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Artistic Exhibitions: Evidence of the petitioner’s work displayed at artistic exhibitions.
- Judging Work: Letters confirming the petitioner’s participation as a judge at multiple exhibitions.
- Awards Documentation: Information about the petitioner’s prize at the International Biennial of Architecture.
- Media Coverage: Articles about the petitioner’s work in Deco & Arquitectura and La Cara Buena del Mundo.
- Salary Data: A letter from an accountant comparing the petitioner’s income to other artists.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification. The documentation lacked necessary details, corroborative evidence, and objective proof of significant contributions to the field. Additionally, the petitioner’s evidence was divided between different fields of architecture, art curation, and fashion accessories, which did not collectively establish extraordinary ability in a single, identifiable field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more detailed and comprehensive evidence to support future petitions or appeals.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
