Date of Decision: July 26, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Audio Engineer
Field: Audio Technology
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The petitioner demonstrated that he has held critical roles with recognized organizations in the audio technology industry.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner provided evidence related to various successful products he developed. However, the Director’s decision did not fully consider or properly evaluate this evidence.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Director did not acknowledge or evaluate the petitioner’s claim regarding this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving any major or lesser recognized awards for excellence in audio technology.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No evidence was provided of published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, particularly his work on various audio products, were claimed to have significant impact in the field. However, the Director’s decision did not adequately consider the evidence submitted in support of this criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
There was no mention of participation as a judge in the Director’s decision.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships were not discussed in detail, but the petitioner did not establish that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No evidence was provided for authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner provided evidence of holding significant positions, demonstrating a leading role in his field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Director did not make an initial determination regarding the petitioner’s claim that his work has been displayed in artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
There was no evidence provided to meet this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted documents including letters from industry experts, product reviews, media articles, and other evidence related to his work and its impact in the field. However, these were insufficiently evaluated in the initial decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal resulted in a remand for further review and collection of additional evidence.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision did not adequately address all the claimed evidentiary criteria and did not provide a thorough explanation for the denial. The case was remanded for a new decision that fully considers the petitioner’s claims and all submitted evidence.
Next Steps: The petitioner should gather and submit additional evidence to support his claims, particularly focusing on demonstrating his sustained national or international acclaim and the major significance of his contributions to the field of audio technology. The Director will then make a new final determination based on the supplemented record.
