Date of Decision: August 25, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Graphics and Multimedia Editor
Field: Creative Technology and Digital Journalism
Nationality: [Not Provided in Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner played a critical role for the team that created several significant projects for the petitioning newspaper.
High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner provided evidence of earning a salary significantly higher than the average for film and video editors in New York.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner provided evidence of the newspaper receiving awards, but not that he personally received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field.
Published Material: The petitioner provided articles written by others about the newspaper’s projects, but these articles did not mention the petitioner specifically.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner provided letters and documentation of his contributions to projects but did not demonstrate that these contributions had a major impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s evidence of awards received by the newspaper was not sufficient to demonstrate that he personally received lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles about the newspaper’s projects, but these did not meet the criterion as they did not focus on the petitioner or his work specifically.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s letters of recommendation and evidence of his work on various projects did not establish that his contributions were of major significance in the field of creative technology and digital journalism. The letters discussed the potential impact of his work rather than its actual influence on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable, as there was no evidence provided for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable, as no membership in associations was discussed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable, as no authorship of scholarly articles was discussed.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner demonstrated his critical role for the team that created several significant projects for the newspaper, fulfilling this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner provided salary evidence showing that his earnings were significantly higher than the average for film and video editors in New York, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Provided letters from professionals and executives recognizing the petitioner’s roles and contributions. However, these letters were insufficient to establish the petitioner’s eligibility under the claimed criteria.
Award Documents: Included documentation of awards received by the newspaper, but these did not establish that the petitioner personally received recognized awards.
Published Articles: Included articles about the newspaper’s projects but did not focus on the petitioner or his work specifically.
Salary Documents: Included salary information that demonstrated the petitioner’s earnings were significantly higher than the average for his field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in his field. The evidence provided was found to be insufficient to establish his eligibility for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive and corroborative evidence to support his claims, focusing on independent recognition and demonstrating how his work has had a significant impact on his field.
