Date of Decision: NOV 19, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Performing Artist
Field: Arts
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner provided evidence of her work being displayed in artistic exhibitions, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Criteria Not Met:
Receipt of Lesser Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed to have received various awards, but did not provide sufficient evidence or certified translations of these awards, making it insufficient to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in an association that requires outstanding achievements, but the evidence provided did not demonstrate that the association’s membership criteria met the required standards. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner submitted evidence of judging a beauty contest. However, this did not demonstrate actual participation in judging the work of others in the field of performing arts, failing the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not demonstrate how her contributions had a major significance in the field of performing arts. The provided evidence did not show that her contributions were widely recognized or had a substantial impact on the field. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Leading or Critical Role: The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner’s roles were leading or critical to the success of any distinguished organizations in the field of performing arts. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence or certified translations to prove that her awards were recognized nationally or internationally.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The Petitioner’s contributions were not shown to have a major impact on the field of performing arts. The documentation provided did not sufficiently demonstrate significant influence or widespread implementation.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate actual participation in judging the work of others in the field of performing arts.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: The memberships provided did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: The Petitioner’s roles did not demonstrate significant recognition or influence in the field of performing arts.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: The Petitioner provided evidence of her work being displayed in artistic exhibitions, meeting this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s work in performing arts.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field of performing arts.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to Reopen Denied
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. The new evidence provided did not overcome the deficiencies identified in the initial and appellate decisions. The evidence presented did not establish the Petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of her field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of her contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
