Date of Decision: July 17, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Musician
Field: Performing Arts (Music)
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Summarily Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner failed to provide evidence meeting the required regulatory criteria or to demonstrate eligibility for EB-1 classification.
Criteria Not Met:
- Major, Internationally Recognized Award:
- The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving a major, internationally recognized award as defined under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).
- Three Alternate Criteria:
- The petitioner did not meet any of the alternate criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Evidence submitted was deemed insufficient or non-qualifying across all ten criteria, including awards, published material, scholarly contributions, and critical roles.
Key Points from the Decision
General Assertions of Error:
- On Form I-290B, the petitioner generally stated that “USCIS committed several errors of both fact and law” but did not specify or address any particular errors in the decision.
Irrelevant Arguments:
- The petitioner requested a national interest waiver (NIW), which is unrelated to the EB-1 classification for extraordinary ability. This mischaracterization further weakened the appeal.
Duplicate Submission:
- The appeal brief was nearly identical to the response provided during the Request for Evidence (RFE) phase, offering no new evidence or arguments to address the Director’s findings.
Supporting Documentation
Award Evidence: None submitted or recognized as major, internationally significant awards.
Published Material: None provided that satisfied the criteria for professional or major trade publications.
Evidence of Critical Roles: None demonstrating distinguished reputation or extraordinary impact in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was summarily dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to identify specific errors in the Director’s decision or provide additional evidence addressing the deficiencies. The record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field.
