Date of Decision: November 27, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Filmmaker
Field: Film Industry
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material: The Petitioner provided qualifying evidence of published material about him in professional or major trade publications, satisfying 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Examples include interviews about his work that appeared in the Slovenian newspaper Delo, the Swiss newspaper La Tribune de Genève, and the Spanish magazine El Cultural.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner served on the juries of several film festivals from 1999 through 2009, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Display at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner’s films were displayed at several film festivals from 1992 to 2010, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence did not establish that the Petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in the field of filmmaking, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner’s awards, including those for his films at various international festivals, did not demonstrate the level of national or international recognition required.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided evidence of published material about him in major media, satisfying this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, while recognized within the film festival circuit, did not demonstrate major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge in several film festivals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner’s films were displayed at various film festivals, satisfying this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including articles, interviews, and evidence of judging activities. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for published material, participation as a judge, and display at artistic exhibitions, the totality of the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or his standing as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of major, internationally recognized awards, or original contributions of major significance.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
