EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Composer – JUL202022_01B2203

Date of Decision: July 20, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability

Petitioner Information

Profession: Composer
Field: Music Composition
Nationality: Not specified in the document

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

1. Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a judge at film festivals in Turkey.

Criteria Not Met:

1. Published Material About the Individual in Professional or Major Media: The submitted articles either briefly mentioned the Petitioner or failed to establish substantial discussion about his work. Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information to prove that these articles appeared in major media or professional publications.
2. Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner primarily worked as an assistant, contributing additional music under the credited composer. His roles did not rise to the level of being leading or critical for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation.
3. High Remuneration for Services: Although the Petitioner provided salary and royalty figures, he did not establish that his earnings were significantly high in relation to others in his field. The comparisons provided were inconsistent and not sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

Key Points from the Decision

Published Materials About the Petitioner:

• The Petitioner was the subject of some articles; however, these articles were either not substantial in discussing his work or not proven to be from major media or professional publications.

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• The Petitioner did not establish that his contributions as an assistant to the credited composer were leading or critical.

Participation as a Judge:

• The Petitioner served as a judge at film festivals, which met one of the required criteria.

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:

• The Petitioner provided salary figures but failed to establish that these were significantly high compared to others in his field. The provided comparisons were inconsistent and insufficient.

Supporting Documentation

• Articles: Various articles mentioning the Petitioner or his projects, but lacking substantial discussion or proof of major media status.
• Letters: Letters from colleagues and industry professionals supporting the Petitioner’s role and contributions, but not establishing extraordinary ability.
• Salary Information: Salary and royalty figures provided, but lacking sufficient comparative analysis to demonstrate high remuneration.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that satisfy at least three of the ten criteria. The record did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification sought.

Reasoning:

• The Petitioner has shown potential and progression in his field but has not yet reached the top as required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. His roles and earnings, while notable, do not meet the stringent criteria set forth for extraordinary ability.

Next Steps:

• The Petitioner may consider providing more robust evidence or documentation to support a future petition or appeal. Specifically, detailed articles discussing his work in major media, evidence of leading roles in distinguished organizations, and clearer comparisons of high remuneration would be beneficial.

Download the Full Petition Review Here

---

Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 20434723
Document Name: JUL202022_01B2203.pdf