Date of Decision: January 24, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Cello Performance
Petitioner Information
Profession: Cellist
Field: Cello Performance
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner met this criterion by demonstrating membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements. The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner met this criterion by serving as a judge of the work of others in the field of cello performance, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Display at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner met this criterion by displaying his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner met this criterion by performing in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material: The Petitioner claimed this criterion with several articles published about his performances. However, the Director determined that these articles did not meet the requirements of being published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The evidence did not demonstrate that the publications had significant national or international distribution, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner submitted letters from colleagues praising his contributions to the field. However, these letters did not provide detailed explanations of the impact and significance of his work. The evidence did not demonstrate that his contributions were widely recognized or had a significant influence in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles about his work, but they did not meet the criterion of being published in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field of cello performance.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge in professional settings, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner met the criterion for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner held leading or critical roles within distinguished organizations, meeting this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner’s work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases, meeting this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, articles, and evidence of his roles and exhibitions. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for membership in associations, participation as a judge, display at artistic exhibitions or showcases, and leading or critical role, the evidence provided did not establish his published material as major media or his original contributions as of major significance. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
