Date of Decision: March 17, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Author and Screenwriter
Field: Writing and Screenwriting
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
None of the criteria were conclusively met as the Director’s findings were not upheld on appeal.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not establish that the awards received are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. The awards provided were not sufficiently demonstrated to meet the recognition standards required.
Published Material in Major Media: The articles provided were primarily reviews of the Petitioner’s works rather than articles about her achievements. The Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the materials met the criteria for major media publications focusing on her work.
Participation as a Judge: The evidence of the Petitioner serving as a judge in a competition for youth recitations did not convincingly demonstrate that she judged the work of others in her field. The evidence provided was inconsistent and lacked verification from the competition organizers.
Commercial Success in the Performing Arts: While the Petitioner claimed commercial success for her film, the evidence did not sufficiently corroborate the box office receipts or demonstrate the film’s success relative to others in the industry.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards received are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The provided articles were primarily reviews of the Petitioner’s works and did not sufficiently focus on her achievements in a manner that meets the criteria for major media publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No evidence provided.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner did not convincingly demonstrate that she judged the work of others in her field. The evidence was inconsistent and lacked sufficient verification.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
No evidence provided.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to corroborate the claimed box office success of her film.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition.
Articles and Publications: Primarily reviews of the Petitioner’s works rather than articles about her achievements.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Box Office Receipts: Claimed but not sufficiently corroborated with independent evidence of commercial success.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The record does not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought. The Petitioner’s achievements, while notable, did not rise to the level of sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB1 extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
