Date of Decision: February 21, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Curator and Historian
Field: Expressive Realism Art
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner demonstrated the Beneficiary’s participation as a judge of others’ work in the field of expressive realism art, fulfilling the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Beneficiary’s membership in an art association was not proven to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing to meet 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Original Contributions: The Beneficiary’s efforts in art donations were appreciated but did not rise to the level of original contributions of major significance, failing 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The one-page article authored by the Beneficiary did not qualify as a scholarly article, failing 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Beneficiary’s roles as a book coordinator and gallery curator were not sufficiently linked to her claimed field of expertise, failing 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Leading or Critical Role: The Beneficiary’s involvement in facilitating art donations was not shown to be of significant importance to the organization’s activities or that the organization had a distinguished reputation, failing 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: No major internationally recognized award was presented, and thus not addressed in the decision.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: Reference letters lacked specific and verifiable details about the Beneficiary’s impact and were not considered sufficient evidence.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: Contributions were acknowledged but did not meet the threshold of major significance in the field as required.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: This criterion was satisfactorily met.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The membership requirements and evaluation process were not sufficiently documented.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The article lacked scholarly elements and verification of the publication’s status.
Leading or Critical Role:
Summary of findings: The role was not adequately demonstrated to be leading or critical.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: The roles did not sufficiently relate to the field of expertise claimed.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: Not addressed in the decision.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: Not addressed in the decision.
Supporting Documentation
Supporting documents were summarized and assessed, but the details did not substantiate the criteria required for EB-1 classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning: The motion did not meet the filing requirements and did not establish that the previous decision was incorrect based on the evidence.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering additional verifiable evidence and legal precedents to support any future motions or petitions.
