Date of Decision: October 25, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 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:
- Display of Work: The Petitioner documented the display of his work at artistic exhibitions in China and the United States.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards: The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the awards received are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor.
- Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not establish that the membership requirements equate to outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Published Material: The submitted publications included samples of the Petitioner’s work but were not about him.
- Judging the Work of Others: The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner served as a formal judge in the specified capacity.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner did not provide evidence that the articles were peer-reviewed or considered scholarly.
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the organizations for which he claimed leading roles have a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received several awards, but there was insufficient evidence to establish that these awards are recognized nationally or internationally for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The publications submitted included samples of the Petitioner’s work but did not focus on him, thus not meeting the criterion for published material about the individual.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No substantial evidence was provided to support claims of original contributions of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner’s role in judging was not sufficiently evidenced as a formal designation in a judging capacity.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s membership did not demonstrate that it required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The articles provided were not shown to be peer-reviewed or scholarly in nature.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the organizations have a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner’s work was displayed in notable exhibitions, fulfilling this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Artistic Exhibitions: Evidence of the Petitioner’s work displayed at various exhibitions in China and the United States.
- Awards Documentation: Evidence of the awards received, though lacking proof of national or international recognition.
- Membership Documentation: Bylaws and requirements for association membership, not demonstrating the necessary level of outstanding achievements.
- Published Material: Copies of publications featuring the Petitioner’s work, lacking focus on the Petitioner himself.
- Judging Evidence: Translation of email requesting confidentiality, insufficient to establish formal judging role.
- Scholarly Articles: Documentation of articles, not proven to be peer-reviewed or scholarly.
- Leadership Roles: Letters describing roles and responsibilities, not demonstrating organizations’ distinguished reputation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the Petitioner did not meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
Reasoning: The Petitioner failed to satisfy the regulatory requirements by not providing sufficient evidence for at least three criteria out of the ten listed. The evidence provided did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence that meets the regulatory criteria and reapplying or pursuing alternative immigration pathways that may better fit his qualifications.
