Date of Decision: September 14, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Film Director and Producer
Field: Filmmaking
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: None met.
Criteria Not Met:
Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor.
The petitioner claimed awards from various film festivals and organizations. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that she received these awards, as the documentation was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from independent sources.
Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.
The petitioner claimed that her unique filmmaking techniques and contributions were of major significance. However, the evidence provided was not sufficient to establish the impact and recognition of these contributions within the field.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
The petitioner claimed critical roles in various projects and organizations. However, the evidence did not establish that her roles were critical to the success of distinguished organizations, nor did it provide specific examples of her impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The petitioner claimed awards for her work in filmmaking, but the evidence did not clearly demonstrate that she was the recipient of these awards. The documentation was inconsistent and lacked independent verification.
Key quotes or references: “The record indicates that an entity, rather than the petitioner, received the award.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Key quotes or references: Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The petitioner claimed contributions in filmmaking techniques and educational courses. However, the evidence did not demonstrate significant impact or recognition in the field.
Key quotes or references: “The documentation submitted on motion does not support the Petitioner’s assertion that she produced these films.”
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Key quotes or references: Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Key quotes or references: Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The petitioner claimed to have authored a significant book on filmmaking. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that the book had a major impact on the field.
Key quotes or references: “The record lacks evidence corroborating his claims.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The petitioner claimed critical roles in various projects. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the impact of her roles on the success of distinguished organizations.
Key quotes or references: “The petitioner does not submit evidence establishing [the organization’s] distinguished reputation.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Key quotes or references: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Key quotes or references: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Key quotes or references: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
List of supporting documents and summary:
Awards claimed: Inconsistent and lacking corroboration.
Contributions in filmmaking: Lacked evidence of significant impact.
Critical roles: Insufficient evidence of impact on distinguished organizations.
Authorship: Insufficient evidence of significant impact in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning: The petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence provided was inconsistent, lacked independent verification, and did not sufficiently demonstrate significant impact or recognition in the field of filmmaking.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider providing more robust and corroborative evidence to support her claims in any future motions or petitions.
