Date of Decision: May 2, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Cinematographer
Field: Film and Television
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Evidence was provided that the petitioner’s work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material in Major Media: The petitioner failed to establish that published articles about them met the standard of major media. Evidence lacked corroboration for the publication’s significance.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not adequately demonstrate original contributions that were significant in the field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Submitted articles did not meet the requirements for scholarly work intended for learned audiences.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of holding a leading or critical role in organizations with distinguished reputations.
- High Salary or Remuneration: Documentation was insufficient to prove a high salary relative to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided articles and evidence from online platforms, including New Television and Life Star. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these publications qualified as major media or professional trade publications. Corroborating evidence, such as circulation metrics or comparative media rankings, was not provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions that were of major significance in the field of cinematography. Letters provided were general and lacked specific details about significant contributions.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner submitted two articles; one was attributed to another author, and the other lacked evidence of being scholarly. The articles appeared to be for general audiences rather than learned professionals in the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion but did not provide sufficient evidence to show that their roles in organizations were leading or critical. Letters from employers lacked detail on duties and contributions specific to organizational success.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner met this criterion by demonstrating that their work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner submitted letters indicating payment for project work but did not provide financial documentation such as contracts, invoices, or tax records to corroborate these claims. Salary comparisons provided were too general to support this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
Letters from Employers: Provided but lacked corroborating financial records or tax documentation.
Comparative Wage Data: General salary data for broad occupational categories, which was deemed non-specific and insufficient.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for the EB-1 extraordinary ability classification. Evidence failed to meet the requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).
