Date of Decision: May 17, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Artist
Field: Fine Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii):
The petitioner provided evidence of his work being featured in various publications. These publications included details about his exhibitions and contributions to the field of fine arts.
Display of Work at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii):
The petitioner demonstrated that his work has been displayed in prominent art exhibitions. This includes a letter from an art institution inviting him to participate in a significant exhibition, which is described as one of the most authoritative exhibitions in the world.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v):
While the petitioner received positive letters from experts in the field praising his original artistic movement, the evidence did not establish that his contributions had a major significance in the field. The letters were prospective in nature and did not detail the impact of his work at the time of filing.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi):
The petitioner submitted books and articles, but failed to demonstrate that these were published in professional or major trade publications or major media. Additionally, the publications were not established as scholarly articles intended for learned persons in the field.
Leading or Critical Role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii):
The petitioner claimed to have held leading and critical roles in various art organizations. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the distinguished reputation of these organizations or the critical impact of his role within them.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s work was featured in various publications, which included details about his exhibitions and contributions to the field of fine arts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner received positive reviews for his original artistic movement, but the evidence did not establish that these contributions had a significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner submitted books and articles, but they were not established as scholarly articles published in major media or professional publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner claimed to have held leading roles, but the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the distinguished reputation of these organizations or the critical impact of his role.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner’s work was displayed in prominent art exhibitions, meeting the criteria for display of work.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several pieces of evidence, including:
Evidence of his work being featured in various publications.
Letters from art institutions inviting him to participate in significant exhibitions.
Books and articles authored by the petitioner.
Letters from experts praising his original artistic movement.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet the initial criteria required for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. The evidence provided did not establish that the petitioner’s contributions had a significant impact on the field of fine arts or that he met the required number of criteria. Additionally, issues of willful misrepresentation were identified in the documentation provided.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider consulting with new legal counsel to explore any further options for appeal or other immigration benefits for which he may be eligible.
