Date of Decision: February 24, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Ballet Dancer and Master Teacher
Field: Performing Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner provided evidence that he served on a judging panel for a youth dance competition. This criterion was met, as it demonstrated the Petitioner’s participation in evaluating the work of others in the field.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed to have received two awards: the “1991 Sport Spettacolo Award” and a 2007 award. However, the evidence provided did not establish the national or international recognition of these awards. The documentation was not accompanied by a full English translation, and the awards were not sufficiently demonstrated to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner provided several articles from La Gazetta del Mezzogiorno and Danza Si. However, the articles did not consistently meet the requirements for professional or major trade publications or other major media. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these publications qualify as major media. The articles focused on the Petitioner’s involvement in projects rather than his personal achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed original contributions in founding a musical performing arts training center, a youth dance competition, a performing arts agency, and a musical theater company. However, the evidence did not demonstrate how these activities were both original and significantly influential in the field. The testimonial letters lacked specific details on the major significance of these contributions.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed leading roles in various organizations but did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that these organizations have distinguished reputations or that the Petitioner’s roles were critical to their success. The letters and documentation provided did not offer specific, detailed information explaining how the Petitioner’s role was critical.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that he personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The documentation was insufficient to demonstrate the awards’ recognition at the required level.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles lacked proper attribution and translation certification.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on the impact and significance of his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a judge for a youth dance competition, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: (Not applicable)
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met one criterion but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
