Date of Decision: January 6, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Event Planner/Film Producer
Field: Arts and Business
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields: The petitioner did not contest the director’s findings for this criterion on appeal.
Criteria Not Met:
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought: The petitioner failed to provide qualifying published material about the beneficiary. The articles submitted did not focus on the beneficiary or were not in major media.
Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought: The petitioner did not contest the director’s findings for this criterion on appeal.
Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field: The petitioner provided reference letters but they did not specify the beneficiary’s original contributions of major significance or their impact beyond the employer and clients.
Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases: The petitioner claimed the beneficiary’s promotional video was showcased at basketball games, but this did not qualify as an artistic exhibition or showcase according to the regulations.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation: The evidence submitted did not sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for multiple organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field: The petitioner failed to provide consistent evidence of high salary or remuneration, and the submitted pay vouchers were not accompanied by certified translations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner did not provide evidence of any major, internationally recognized awards that would qualify under the one-time achievement criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The articles provided did not meet the regulatory requirements as they were not focused on the beneficiary or were not published in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The reference letters provided lacked specific examples and evidence of contributions of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner did not provide evidence of the beneficiary’s participation as a judge of the work of others.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner did not contest the director’s findings for this criterion on appeal.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner did not provide evidence of the beneficiary’s authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The evidence submitted was insufficient to demonstrate the beneficiary’s leading or critical role for multiple distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The promotional video at basketball games did not qualify as an artistic exhibition or showcase.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The evidence provided was inconsistent and lacked certified translations.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: The petitioner did not provide evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters: Various letters from colleagues and acquaintances, which lacked specific examples of the beneficiary’s contributions of major significance.
- Pay Vouchers: Provided without certified translations, therefore lacking probative value.
- Articles: Provided but did not meet the criteria for published material about the beneficiary in major media.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidence requirements and did not demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the regulatory criteria.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the beneficiary’s extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and extensive documentation of achievements.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider filing a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen with new facts or legal arguments.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
