Date of Decision: February 11, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Curator and Historian of Expressive Realism Art
Field: Art and Art History
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Beneficiary met the judging criteria by serving as a judge for art competitions and evaluations. This role demonstrated participation in judging the work of others in the field.
Criteria Not Met
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in several art associations. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner highlighted an essay written by the Beneficiary published in an art catalogue. However, the review found that this publication did not qualify as a major trade publication or other major media. The evidence provided did not meet the criteria for published material in major media about the Beneficiary.
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary held a leading role in a large art donation project for a foundation. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the foundation’s distinguished reputation or how the Beneficiary’s role was leading or critical to the success of the organization.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters provided lacked specific details on how the contributions significantly influenced the field.
Display at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary’s work was displayed at artistic exhibitions. However, the evidence did not meet the criteria for exhibitions of significant prestige or recognition in the field.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary’s salary was high relative to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about the Beneficiary were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The essay in the art catalogue did not meet the required standards.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on how the contributions significantly influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary served as a judge for art competitions and evaluations, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The essay in the art catalogue did not meet the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary performed a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases of significant prestige.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary’s 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 for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included an essay in an art catalogue that did not meet the standards for major media coverage.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Beneficiary’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 one criterion but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The totality of the evidence did 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.
