Date of Decision: March 30, 2020
Service Center: Texas 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
None of the criteria were conclusively met as the Director’s findings were not upheld on appeal.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The certificates submitted did not appear to be nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the Petitioner’s field. Some were local or regional, and the translations did not refer to the Petitioner’s work as a director.
Published Material About the Alien: The submitted articles and website printouts mentioned the Petitioner but did not primarily focus on his work or achievements. They did not meet the standard of being published material about the alien relating to his work in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The letters provided did not establish the major significance of specific original contributions by the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not elaborate on this criterion on appeal.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The letters from colleagues and clients did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s roles were leading or critical for organizations with a distinguished reputation. The evidence did not show how his contributions were critical to the success of these organizations.
Display at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The evidence provided did not establish that the Petitioner’s work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The materials mentioned the Petitioner but did not focus on his work or achievements, and therefore did not meet the required standard.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The evidence provided did not establish the major significance of the Petitioner’s contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s roles were leading or critical for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: The evidence did not establish that the Petitioner’s work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Certificates and Awards: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition.
Articles and Website Printouts: Mentioned the Petitioner but did not focus on his work or achievements.
Letters from Colleagues and Clients: Praised the Petitioner’s work but did not demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Lack of Documentary Evidence: The evidence mostly relied on letters rather than primary documentation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The record does not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
