Date of Decision: March 6, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Drama Director
Field: Drama and Theatre Arts
Nationality: Nepalese
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Artistic Display Criterion:
The Petitioner met the artistic display criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The documentation indicated that the Petitioner directed plays at various theaters.
Judging Criterion:
The Petitioner fulfilled the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) by participating as a judge in drama competitions.
High Salary Criterion:
The Petitioner demonstrated that he earned a high salary compared to other theater directors in Nepal, meeting the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes Criterion:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards received were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor.
Membership in Associations Criterion:
The Petitioner did not establish that his membership in associations required outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published Materials About the Petitioner Criterion:
The articles presented were either undated or over a dozen years old and did not constitute evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance Criterion:
The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were original and of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received several awards from organizations affiliated with the government, but did not establish these as awards for excellence recognized by the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The provided articles did not show sustained national or international acclaim, being either too old or not sufficiently significant.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The contributions cited, such as dramaturgy and cinematographic modes, were not proven to be original or of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The judging activities occurred many years ago and were not shown to be prestigious or significantly recognized by the field.
Membership in Associations:
The memberships did not require outstanding achievements and did not contribute to a finding of sustained acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable based on the provided documentation.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The roles at various organizations were documented, but the impact on the field was not sufficiently established.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The evidence did not show that the Petitioner’s plays were distinguished from others in the field or demonstrated sustained acclaim.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
While the Petitioner earned a high salary, this alone was not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the extraordinary ability classification.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner submitted various documents, including articles, recommendation letters, and evidence of awards. However, the evidence did not collectively demonstrate that the Petitioner had sustained national or international acclaim or was among the top of his field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence or pursuing other immigration options that may be available.
