Date of Decision: July 1, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Film and Television Director
Field: Film and Television
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served on judging panels for film festivals and film awards competitions, supporting the satisfaction of the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The petitioner received several awards, but the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that these were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field.
Membership in Associations:
There was no primary evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The submitted articles were not about the petitioner and her work, and the publications were not established as professional or major trade publications or major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not establish specific original contributions of major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that her role as an episodic television director was leading or critical for a television network, studio, or production company as a whole.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not establish that she commanded a high salary or significantly high remuneration compared to other similarly employed television directors.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
The petitioner documented several awards for her short and feature films, but these did not meet the criterion of nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence. Examples included awards from various film festivals and a regional Directors Guild award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
Articles from sources like wdtvpress.com, Indiewire.com, and others mentioned the petitioner but were not about her. Additionally, these sources were not established as professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
Letters from colleagues praised the petitioner’s technical skills and artistic talents but did not establish her contributions as majorly significant in the field.
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner served on judging panels for film festivals, meeting the criterion related to judging the work of others.
Membership in Associations
The petitioner claimed membership in major industry guilds and unions but did not provide evidence of qualifying memberships that require outstanding achievements judged by experts.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
Testimonial evidence praised the petitioner’s work on individual episodes of television shows but did not establish her role as leading or critical for the organizations as a whole.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner’s earnings were compared to industry standards set by the Directors Guild of America (DGA) but did not demonstrate that she commanded a significantly high salary compared to other television directors.
Supporting Documentation
Awards and Prizes: Certificates, nominations, and award descriptions.
Memberships: Claims of membership without primary evidence.
Published Materials: Articles and reviews mentioning the petitioner.
Original Contributions: Letters from industry colleagues.
High Salary: Tax documents, deal memos, and letters from talent agencies.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
The petitioner demonstrated success and recognition in her field but did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps:
Consider gathering more substantial and relevant evidence to support the criteria not met.
Seek further guidance or legal advice on potential reapplication or other visa classifications that may be more appropriate for the petitioner’s qualifications and achievements.
