Date of Decision: April 23, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Copywriter
Field: Advertising and Creative Writing
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a judge for various advertising competitions, including the Cyber Category of the Brazil Creative Club in 2014, and as a jury member for the 2016 Creation Awards and the 2010 Festival sponsored by the Association of Advertising Professionals of Brazil.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored articles published in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed to have received several awards, including the Luban Award, the Tianyou Zhan Award, and other recognitions. However, the evidence provided showed that these awards were given to the companies or projects rather than to the Petitioner personally. Therefore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner served in several roles, such as Vice President and Director, at various organizations. However, the evidence did not sufficiently establish that these organizations had distinguished reputations. The provided materials were self-generated promotional content without objective, external sources verifying the organizations’ distinguished reputations. Consequently, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he performed in leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that he personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The awards cited were given to companies or projects rather than the individual.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field. The evidence provided did not show widespread implementation or significant impact of his work.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a judge for various advertising competitions, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide evidence that memberships in professional associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored articles published in professional publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he performed leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations.
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 was high relative 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 for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Did not focus on the Petitioner and were not from major media.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two of the criteria 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.
