Date of Decision: September 26, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Broadcast Journalist
Field: Journalism
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner presented evidence that his documentary film was featured at an artistic exhibition. This demonstrated his work being showcased in a recognized setting.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser National or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of journalism. The documentation related to the awards did not establish the recognition required for this criterion.
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The record does not reflect published material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The provided materials were about his band rather than about him individually, and they lacked necessary details such as the title, date, and author.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner provided evidence that he judged soccer personnel, which is not in the same or allied field of broadcast journalism. Therefore, this criterion was not met as the judging activities were not relevant to his field of expertise.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his documentary films have significantly influenced the field of broadcast journalism. The evidence provided showed that he created the films, but did not establish their major significance in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not establish that he authored scholarly articles in the field of broadcast journalism in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The record reflected that he produced documentary films but did not show they were scholarly articles.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of his commercial successes through receipts or sales. The evidence from YouTube and Coke Studio did not demonstrate commercial success compared to other musicians or guitarists.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner’s receipt of awards was not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials provided were about the band he performed with, not about him individually. Additionally, these materials lacked the required details and were not shown to be from major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s work on documentary films did not establish a major impact on the field of broadcast journalism. Citations and recommendation letters highlighted his work but failed to demonstrate its major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner’s judging activities were not in the field of broadcast journalism, failing to meet this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s documentary films were not considered scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner’s documentary film being featured at an artistic exhibition met this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The evidence provided did not meet the requirements for demonstrating commercial success through sales or receipts.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters from professionals, evidence of participation as a judge, records of documentary films, and screenshots from various websites. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner’s recognition or commercial success as required.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation includes specific details about the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
