Date of Decision: October 31, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Musician
Field: Music
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Awards and Prizes: The Petitioner provided evidence of a “qualification of Excellent” received at a masterclass with a renowned guitarist. However, this was not deemed sufficient as a major award.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner submitted reference letters from notable individuals in the music industry and a review article from Rolling Stone. The review article, dated 2022, was considered inadmissible as it postdated the petition filing in 2021. The reference letters, although supportive, were not enough to demonstrate major significance in the field.
Criteria Not Met
Published Material About the Petitioner: The provided Rolling Stone article was not considered due to its publication date.
Participation as a Judge: No evidence was provided to meet this criterion.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: No evidence was provided for this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner cited work with a company known for collaborating with well-known artists. However, this was not enough to demonstrate a leading or critical role as defined by USCIS standards.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: No evidence was provided to meet this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence for this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: No evidence was provided for this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The Petitioner argued that the originality of his work in creating a new musical genre inherently demonstrated its major significance. However, the USCIS found that while the work was original, it did not rise to the level of major significance required by the criterion. The letters and collaborations cited did not sufficiently prove the widespread impact or significant influence in the field.
Leading or Critical Role
The Petitioner highlighted his association with a distinguished company. However, the evidence provided did not meet the necessary standard to show that he played a leading or critical role within the organization.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters: Three letters from industry professionals detailing the Petitioner’s influence on their work.
- Review Article: Rolling Stone article published in 2022, postdating the petition filing.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and reconsider is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. The new evidence provided did not address the deficiencies noted in the initial decision.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence to meet the criteria and possibly reapplying or seeking other appropriate immigration avenues.
