Date of Decision: February 28, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Painter and Performance Artist
Field: Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Materials: The petitioner provided an article from a recognized publication discussing his work and exhibitions, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Artistic Exhibitions: The petitioner demonstrated that his work has been displayed at exhibitions, including a prominent gallery in Romania, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner submitted evidence of his artistic work and letters of recommendation. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s work constituted original contributions of major significance in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Membership in Associations: The petitioner did not provide documentation to show that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Awards: The petitioner submitted various awards and recognitions but did not provide evidence that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Judging the Work of Others: Although the petitioner has judged art competitions, he did not provide evidence that sets him apart from others in his field or that he judged professional and renowned artists, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided an article discussing his work and exhibitions, which met the regulatory requirements for published materials.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field of arts.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a judge in art competitions but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this experience is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this classification.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his memberships in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner’s work has been displayed at exhibitions, meeting this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate commercial success in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates and Awards: Various certificates and awards related to his role as a painter and performance artist.
- Articles and Publications: An article from a recognized publication discussing his work and exhibitions.
- Letters of Support: Letters confirming his role as a judge in art competitions, but lacking specific details about membership requirements.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required criteria for EB-1 classification. Despite notable achievements, the petitioner did not establish the level of extraordinary ability required. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized, or that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. The Director’s initial decision contained significant errors and inconsistencies, prompting the AAO to withdraw the decision and remand the matter for further review.
Next Steps: The petitioner should consider providing additional evidence or exploring other visa categories that may better suit his qualifications and achievements.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
