Date of Decision: March 24, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Contemporary Christian Music Composer and Director
Field: Music
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner judged the 201X Band Competition, satisfying the criterion for judging.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the Music Award he received is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. The submitted documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate the award’s national or international significance in the field of Contemporary Christian music.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The letters provided did not sufficiently detail the nature or impact of the Petitioner’s contributions. The evidence did not demonstrate that his contributions have been widely implemented, have remarkably impacted the field, or have risen to a level of major significance.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner’s doctoral dissertation published on the university’s institutional repository does not amount to the publication of a scholarly article in a professional journal or other major media. The evidence provided does not meet the requirement for this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner played a leading or critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation. The letters provided lacked detail on the Petitioner’s impact on the organizations’ outcomes and did not establish the organizations’ distinguished reputations.
High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he commands a high salary in relation to others in the field. The submitted pay stub and salary surveys did not provide an adequate basis for comparison.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Music Award received is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The letters provided did not sufficiently detail the major significance of the Petitioner’s contributions in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner judged the work of others in the 201X Band Competition, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s doctoral dissertation does not meet the requirement for scholarly articles in professional journals or other major media.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate playing a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that his salary is high in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition.
Articles and Publications: Did not meet the required standards for major media coverage.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Incomplete and insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
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 provide the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The record does 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.
