Date of Decision: February 15, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Musician
Field: Music and Entertainment Industry
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Sustained National or International Acclaim: The petitioner has submitted various documents, including a 2019 news article by Novascience confirming attendance at a masterclass. However, attending a masterclass was not considered a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence.
- Published Material: A 2022 Rolling Stone article outlines the petitioner’s career and accomplishments, yet it does not establish contributions of major significance at the time of filing in 2021.
Criteria Not Met:
- Prizes or Awards for Excellence: The petitioner’s participation in a masterclass was not deemed sufficient evidence of a recognized prize or award.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Rolling Stone article and other submitted documents did not establish the petitioner’s work as having a major impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The news article did not meet the evidentiary requirement for nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: - The 2022 Rolling Stone article highlighted the petitioner’s career but failed to demonstrate major significance in the music industry.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Despite some influence in the music and entertainment industry, the petitioner’s work did not rise to the level of major significance.
Supporting Documentation
- Novascience News Article (2019): Confirms attendance at a masterclass.
- Rolling Stone Article (2022): Discusses career achievements, but published post-filing and thus not considered timely evidence.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability as defined under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- Both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were dismissed due to the lack of new evidence or identification of legal or factual errors in prior decisions.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence that directly meets the criteria for extraordinary ability and reapplying or appealing with more robust documentation.
