Date of Decision: September 5, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Irish Dance Teacher
Field: Irish Dance and Choreography
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the work of others in the field:
The petitioner demonstrated that she judged the work of others in the field, fulfilling one of the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Original contributions of major significance to the field:
The petitioner was initially determined by the Director to have made original contributions of major significance. However, upon further review, this was disputed due to lack of sufficient evidence connecting the petitioner’s contributions directly to significant achievements.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field:
The petitioner did not meet this criterion as the awards cited were received by her students rather than by her directly. The criterion requires the individual, not someone else, to have received the awards.
Membership in associations in the field that require outstanding achievements of their members:
The petitioner argued that her membership in certain associations should qualify under this criterion. However, the associations did not demonstrate that they required outstanding achievements for membership, leading to this criterion not being met.
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or other major media:
The published material presented was about the petitioner’s students or the Irish dance competitions they participated in, not about the petitioner herself. Thus, this criterion was not satisfied.
Evidence of high salary or remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she commanded a high salary or significantly high remuneration relative to others in the field.
Commercial successes in the performing arts:
The petitioner claimed her students’ performances in a commercial show as evidence. However, she did not provide verification or establish her direct contribution to the commercial success of the show.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner cited awards won by her students, but this did not meet the criterion as the awards were not directly received by her.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials were about the petitioner’s students or events, not the petitioner, which did not satisfy the criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s claimed contributions were not sufficiently substantiated with detailed evidence linking her training to significant achievements.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner met this criterion by judging the work of others in her field.
Membership in Associations:
The associations mentioned did not meet the required standard of needing outstanding achievements for membership.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable or not sufficiently evidenced in the document.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s role was acknowledged but not sufficiently linked to significant contributions or achievements.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable or not sufficiently evidenced in the document.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not meet this criterion as the evidence provided was not adequate to demonstrate a high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not meet this criterion due to lack of verification and connection to her contributions.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Various reference letters from Irish dance teachers and schools, though lacking in specifics.
Awards Lists: Included lists of awards won by students but without corroborating evidence.
Photographs: Images of students with awards and the petitioner but insufficient to establish significant contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was denied.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner’s direct and significant contributions to her field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may need to gather more substantial and specific evidence linking her contributions directly to significant achievements and potentially consider reapplying with stronger documentation.
