Date of Decision: June 17, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Dance Instructor
Field: Performing Arts (Dance)
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner provided evidence of evaluating dance performances, satisfying this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Articles provided were found insufficient to qualify as professional or major trade publications.
- Supporting materials, such as Wikipedia entries and social media content, lacked reliability and probative value.
- Lesser Prizes or Awards:
- Evidence of awards did not demonstrate national or international recognition.
- Leading or Critical Role:
- Claims related to roles in organizations were not supported by sufficient documentation or occurred after the petition filing date, making them inadmissible for consideration.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
Evidence showed the petitioner judged dance performances, satisfying one regulatory criterion.
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The petitioner failed to provide reliable evidence that articles discussing their work were published in major media or professional trade publications. Wikipedia and Facebook content were deemed unreliable.
Lesser Prizes or Awards:
Awards submitted lacked documentation proving national or international recognition.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner’s roles in organizations were either insufficiently documented or occurred after the filing date, which disqualified them from consideration.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Evidence: Provided and accepted.
Published Articles: Insufficient documentation for recognition as major media.
Awards Documentation: Lacked national or international significance.
Leadership Claims: Not substantiated or inadmissible due to timing issues.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met one regulatory criterion but failed to satisfy at least three criteria required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of their field.