Date of Decision: January 3, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Event Producer
Field: Event Production
Nationality: Ecuadorian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner was mentioned in various media articles; however, only one article in “El Comercio” was deemed relevant, discussing his role in bringing a popular American performer to Ecuador.
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner participated as a judge in a music award event, but it did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner played a significant role in the success of a popular Ecuadorian band and cultural events in the Municipal District of Quito, but it did not elevate his standing to the top of his field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material Insufficiently Demonstrating Top Status: Many articles were promotional rather than indicative of top status in the field.
- Judging Activity Not Sufficient: The single instance of judging did not reflect sustained acclaim or high standing.
- Leading Role Not Demonstrated as Distinctive: While roles were significant, they did not provide sufficient evidence of distinction or leading impact in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner did not demonstrate significant awards or prizes that highlight his extraordinary ability.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of Findings: Articles in “El Comercio” and other publications were more promotional and did not significantly discuss his work or acclaim as an event producer.
- Key Quotes: The articles primarily discussed events he produced rather than his individual achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s work in event production and management was acknowledged but not considered of major significance within the field.
- Key Quotes: No significant contributions highlighted in the provided documentation.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s participation as a judge in a music awards event was noted but did not reflect a high level of sustained acclaim.
- Key Quotes: Judging was based on general criteria and did not elevate his standing in the field.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of Findings: The decision did not highlight any significant memberships that would contribute to his claim of extraordinary ability.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of Findings: No scholarly articles authored by the petitioner were provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of Findings: Roles in event production and cultural promotion were recognized but did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.
- Key Quotes: The petitioner’s roles were important but did not set him apart as a top figure in his field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s involvement in artistic showcases focused on the artists rather than his role in production.
- Key Quotes: Events showcased the work of performers, not the petitioner’s production skills.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of Findings: No specific evidence of high salary or remuneration was provided to indicate extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner did not provide substantial evidence of commercial success in the performing arts as an event producer.
- Key Quotes: Promotional materials and event tickets did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Supporting Documentation
- List of Supporting Documents and Summaries:
- Articles from various media outlets.
- Letters from colleagues and industry professionals.
- Event badges and promotional materials.
- Letters from radio station and promotion company directors.
- Documentation of involvement in cultural events and awards judging.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence provided did not establish extraordinary ability as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the petitioner gather more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, such as major awards, significant published materials about his work, or other documentation that can clearly demonstrate his top standing in the field of event production.
