Date of Decision: August 15, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Filmmaker and Producer
Field: Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles and television coverage about his work in major media, fulfilling this criterion. These articles demonstrated the Petitioner’s recognition and the impact of his work in the field of filmmaking.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner argued that he made original contributions in the film industry, supported by reference letters. However, the letters did not demonstrate how these contributions were of major significance to the field. They praised his skills and projects but lacked specific evidence showing a significant impact or widespread implementation.
Evidence of the Display of the Alien’s Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner provided evidence of his film being shown in over 400 cinemas across 42 states. However, the documentation did not establish how this exhibition significantly influenced the film industry or demonstrated major significance beyond the release in theaters.
Comparable Evidence:
The Petitioner requested that his television interviews and critically acclaimed successes be considered as comparable evidence. However, he did not explain why he could not provide evidence meeting at least three of the criteria set forth in the regulations. Therefore, this request was not granted.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not specifically addressed in the decision, indicating no significant awards or prizes were presented as evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided evidence of articles and television coverage in major media, fulfilling this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were praised in reference letters but were not shown to be of major significance to the field. The evidence lacked specific examples of how his work significantly influenced the film industry.
Participation as a Judge:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable based on the field of filmmaking.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner’s film was shown in numerous cinemas, but this did not demonstrate major significance or influence in the film industry.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable based on the field of filmmaking.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included articles and television coverage about the Petitioner, reference letters, and evidence of film exhibitions. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner’s recognition or the required acclaim.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation includes specific details about the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
