Date of Decision: May 28, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Motion Picture Production Designer and Art Director
Field: Cinematic Art Direction and Production Design
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The petitioner was the subject of an article in The Hindu, one of India’s highest-circulation daily newspapers.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner’s work on the film nominated for “Best Production Design / Art Direction” at the FilmQuest Festival demonstrates recognition of her actual work in her field.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The petitioner worked on several award-winning films but did not establish that she personally received these awards. Documentation often credited other individuals, such as directors and producers, rather than the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Letters from colleagues attested to the petitioner’s talent but did not provide sufficient evidence of contributions of major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations or Establishments:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that she held leading or critical roles in projects with established distinguished reputations.
High Remuneration for Services:
The evidence provided did not sufficiently compare the petitioner’s remuneration to that of other art directors in the motion picture industry. The data did not establish that her earnings were significantly higher than her peers.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not show that her work was a significant factor in the commercial success of the films she worked on.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s involvement in award-winning projects did not suffice as evidence of her personal receipt of awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
An article in The Hindu validated her recognition in major media, satisfying this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Assertions of major significance by colleagues were not corroborated with objective evidence.
Participation as a Judge:
No evidence submitted for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence submitted for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No evidence submitted for this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles in significant projects were not proven to be leading or critical.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Recognized through a nomination for “Best Production Design / Art Direction” at FilmQuest Festival.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Provided salary evidence did not establish her earnings as significantly high relative to industry standards.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
No direct evidence provided to support this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
Several newspaper and magazine articles about the petitioner.
Letters of recommendation from industry professionals.
Pay receipts and bank statements showing weekly earnings.
Festival nominations and awards documentation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the required initial evidentiary criteria. Although some criteria were satisfied, the overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for EB1 classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional, more robust evidence to demonstrate her extraordinary ability and meet the required criteria for a future petition.
