Date of Decision: October 14, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Dancer and Choreographer
Field: Performing Arts
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None specified in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of awards that meet the required criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Published Material: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material in major media about her, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s evidence did not establish original contributions of major significance in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that she performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of a high salary compared to others in her field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of awards that meet the required criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material in major media about her.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s evidence did not establish original contributions of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that she performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of a high salary compared to others in her field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, but they did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the previous decisions were incorrect based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide new facts or evidence for consideration. The Petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of their contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit their qualifications.
