Date of Decision: August 11, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Opera Singer
Field: Arts
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Receipt of Lesser Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner won third prize in the solo voice category at the 2002 competition in the Philippines, which qualifies as a lesser nationally recognized award for excellence in the field.
- Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner served as a judge at the 2005 competition and was a board member for the 2011 competition in the Philippines.
- Display of Work: The Petitioner’s performances as a soprano singer at events in 2004, 2005, and 2006, where she was featured in programs, meet the criterion for artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Criteria Not Met:
- Sustained National or International Acclaim: The Petitioner’s awards and recognitions, while significant, do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary for EB1 classification.
- Significance of Judging Roles: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the prestige or renown of the competitions where she served as a judge.
- Media Coverage: The articles provided did not establish the necessary national or international acclaim as they mostly mention the Petitioner in passing without focusing on her achievements.
- High Level of Remuneration: The evidence of remuneration provided did not establish that the Petitioner regularly receives significantly high remuneration indicating she is at the top of her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
The Petitioner won several awards, including a third place in a national competition and an encouragement award from an international competition. However, these were considered indicative of future potential rather than established acclaim.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
The Petitioner provided various articles from notable publications. However, the articles did not demonstrate significant national or international acclaim and were often focused on events rather than the Petitioner’s achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The Petitioner’s transliteration work for an opera was highlighted, but it did not show a present impact beyond the production.
Participation as a Judge
The Petitioner’s roles as a judge were not sufficiently substantiated to demonstrate significant recognition or acclaim in her field.
Membership in Associations
The decision did not specifically address any claims regarding membership in professional associations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
No significant information was provided regarding the authorship of scholarly articles by the Petitioner.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
The Petitioner’s role as a soloist and performer in various concerts was noted but did not establish her as being at the very top of her field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
The Petitioner’s performances were considered but did not show the level of acclaim required.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
The Petitioner’s remuneration for specific performances did not establish a consistent high level of income indicative of extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
No significant commercial successes in the performing arts were demonstrated.
Supporting Documentation
- Award Certificates: Documentation of awards received by the Petitioner.
- Judging Panel Memberships: Evidence of the Petitioner’s participation as a judge.
- Performance Programs: Programs from concerts where the Petitioner performed.
- Media Articles: Various articles and publications mentioning the Petitioner.
- Remuneration Evidence: Contracts and letters showing payment for performances.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim and did not demonstrate that she is among the small percentage at the top of her field. The documentation provided did not meet the stringent requirements for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence or reapplying with more comprehensive documentation of her achievements.
