Date of Decision: June 26, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Director, Producer, Screenwriter
Field: Television and Entertainment Industry
Nationality: Russia
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the work of others: The Petitioner served as a jury member at film festivals.
- Receipt of lesser awards: The Petitioner received the 2008 TEFI award for screenwriting.
- Leading or critical role: The Petitioner had a leading or critical role in various projects in the television and entertainment industry.
- Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases: The Petitioner submitted evidence related to shows, videos, projects, and films upon which he worked.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published materials in professional publications or major media: The Director initially determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion due to a lack of professional or major trade publications.
- Original contributions of major significance: The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of original contributions that have achieved major significance.
- High salary or other significantly high remuneration: The Petitioner did not meet the criterion of receiving a high salary or other significantly high remuneration.
- Commercial successes in the performing arts: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received the 2008 TEFI award for screenwriting. The Director initially declined to afford evidentiary weight to this award, claiming it was not accompanied by the required translator certification, which was later found to be incorrect.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Director discounted media articles relating to the Petitioner’s award and achievements, as they were not published in professional or major trade publications or other major media, which was a requirement not present in the regulation.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner served as a jury member at several film festivals. The Director’s analysis was found to be inappropriate as it did not objectively satisfy the plain language of the regulatory criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not explicitly mentioned or evaluated in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not explicitly mentioned or evaluated in the decision.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner had a leading or critical role in various projects. The Director’s requirement for this role to be for the entire organization was incorrect, as it could also be for a division or department.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner’s work in shows, videos, projects, and films was submitted as evidence. The Director incorrectly limited this criterion to visual arts only.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not meet this criterion as he did not provide sufficient evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of commercial successes.
Supporting Documentation
- TEFI Award Certificate: Included the required translator certification, contradicting the Director’s initial finding.
- Film Festival Jury Memberships: Documents confirming the Petitioner’s role as a jury member.
- Media Articles: Various articles supporting the Petitioner’s achievements, though initially discounted by the Director for not meeting incorrect publication standards.
- Project Documentation: Evidence related to shows, videos, projects, and films the Petitioner worked on, relevant to artistic exhibitions or showcases criterion.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis provided. The Director is instructed to re-evaluate the evidence submitted in support of the petition to determine whether the Petitioner satisfies the plain language of at least three criteria and to issue a new decision.
Reasoning:
The Director applied incorrect standards and failed to consider relevant evidence, leading to the decision being withdrawn. The new evaluation will ensure the evidence is assessed correctly according to the plain language of the regulatory criteria.
Next Steps:
The Director should re-evaluate the evidence submitted under the relevant criteria and issue a new decision.
