Date of Decision: May 29, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Multimedia Designer
Field: Multimedia Design
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others
The petitioner provided evidence of serving as a judge for the Youth Micro Film Contest 2015 and the Micro Video Competition 2016.
Criterion 2: Display of the Petitioner’s Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
The petitioner’s work was exhibited at the 2010 Designers Week International Design Exhibition, the 2015 [Exhibition], and was screened at several film festivals, including the 2017 [Film Festival].
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Published Material About the Petitioner
The petitioner provided articles published on websites such as qq.com, sohu.com, 163.com, and sina.com.cn. However, the translations did not include the required certification by the translator, and there was insufficient information to establish that the publications were considered professional or major trade publications.
Criterion 2: Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations
The petitioner claimed roles as a lead product designer and user experience lead for several companies. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s roles were leading or critical to the success of these organizations. The letters of recommendation lacked detailed information and specific documentation supporting the claims.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he had received lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles that mentioned him, but the evidence did not meet the criterion for published material in professional or major trade publications. The circulation statistics provided were insufficient to establish these publications as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed contributions such as designing the poster series [Title], directing the short film [Title], and designing the interactive costume installation [Title]. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the major significance or widespread implementation of these contributions in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence of serving as a judge for various competitions, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that he held leading or critical roles within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner demonstrated that his work was exhibited at various artistic exhibitions and film festivals, meeting this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the petitioner’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Exhibition Records: Documentation of the petitioner’s work being displayed at various exhibitions and film festivals.
Judging Records: Evidence of the petitioner’s participation as a judge in various competitions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. While the petitioner demonstrated participation as a judge and exhibition of his work, the evidence provided did not establish the major significance of his contributions to the field of multimedia design. The petitioner did not show that his professional accomplishments placed him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on contributions with demonstrated major significance, awards with national or international recognition, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
