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
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded for a New Decision
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Roles: The Petitioner held critical roles with significant organizations such as being the North American Technical Sales Lead/Technical Director for a major audio company and co-founder of an audio product company.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Director initially concluded that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of original contributions of major significance. However, this was reconsidered upon appeal due to a mischaracterization of the evidence.
Display of Work in Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Director did not initially address this criterion. The case was remanded to evaluate the evidence related to this criterion properly.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: This criterion was not claimed or addressed in the decision.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner provided evidence of various commercially and critically successful audio products developed, supported by letters from industry experts and media articles. The Director was asked to re-evaluate this evidence.
Participation as a Judge: Not addressed in the decision.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not satisfy the criteria for membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Display of Work in Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Director was asked to consider this criterion on remand as it was not initially addressed.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: The Petitioner maintained that he had a record of significant commercial success but did not directly address this criterion in the appeal.
Supporting Documentation
Letters from Industry Experts: Various letters were provided supporting the significance of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field.
Product Reviews and Media Articles: Documentation of product reviews and media coverage of the Petitioner’s work was submitted.
Commercial Success Evidence: Evidence related to the commercial success of audio products developed by the Petitioner was included.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for a new decision.
Reasoning:
The Director’s decision did not adequately address all claimed evidentiary criteria and did not provide sufficient reasoning for the denial. The Petitioner provided substantial evidence that was not properly considered. The Director must re-evaluate the evidence, particularly related to the display of work in artistic exhibitions or showcases and the original contributions of major significance.
Next Steps:
The Director will re-examine the evidence submitted, including the criteria of displaying work in artistic exhibitions or showcases and original contributions of major significance. If the Petitioner meets at least three criteria, the Director will conduct a final merits determination to assess whether the Petitioner has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.
