Date of Decision: NOV 19, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Film Director and Producer
Field: Arts
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Receipt of Lesser Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner provided evidence of receiving the “Best Documentary” award. However, this evidence was submitted without certified translations, making it insufficient to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in a specific association, asserting that it required outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts. However, the evidence provided, including uncertified translations of documents, did not demonstrate that the association’s membership criteria met the required standards. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
- Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner submitted evidence of composing the judging committee for a film festival and judging a beauty contest. However, the documentation did not show actual participation in judging the work of others in the field of film producing and directing, and the beauty contest judging was not in the same or allied field. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner conducted a workshop on audiovisual production, but did not demonstrate how it significantly impacted or influenced the field in a major way. The evidence did not show that the workshop was considered of major significance by the overall field. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
- Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner provided evidence of films being exhibited at various venues. However, the uncertified translations and the lack of identification of the venues meant that this evidence did not meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner provided evidence of acting roles in a soap opera and a commercial, but did not show how these roles were leading or critical to the success of the organizations involved. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Findings: The Petitioner’s awards were not supported by certified translations or additional documentation demonstrating national or international recognition for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Findings: The Petitioner’s contributions, while notable, did not demonstrate the required level of major significance or widespread impact in the field of film producing and directing.
Participation as a Judge:
- Findings: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate actual participation in judging the work of others in the field of film producing and directing.
Membership in Associations:
- Findings: The memberships provided did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Findings: The Petitioner’s roles in acting did not demonstrate significant importance to the success of the organizations involved.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her work was displayed at recognized artistic venues.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s work in film directing and producing.
- Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field of film directing and producing.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence presented did not establish the Petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of her field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of her contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.