Date of Decision: July 23, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Photographer
Field: Photography
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The Petitioner, a photographer, sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, she did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or show that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal.
Criteria Met
The Director determined that the Petitioner met the following criteria:
Awards: The Petitioner received several awards, including the “Excellent Photographer Award” at the China International Photography Festival, two “Silver Awards” at the Entrepreneur Photographers Association Photography Art Exhibition, a “Gold Award” at the National Photography Competition, a “Commendation Award” at the International Photography Contest, and a “Silver Prize” at the Photography Art Exhibition.
Published Material: The Petitioner provided seven articles about her and her work.
Judging: The Petitioner served as a review committee member for various photography exhibitions, including the Photography Exhibition, the Photography Exhibition, and the National Photography Exhibition.
Display of Work: The Petitioner displayed her work at various exhibitions, such as the Photography Exhibition, the International Photography Festival, the Photo Festival Exhibition, and the International Photography Exhibition.
Criteria Not Met
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner argued that she satisfied the criterion for a leading or critical role. However, the AAO did not find sufficient evidence that her roles were critical to the success of the organizations she was associated with.
Final Merits Determination
Sustained National or International Acclaim: The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Although she received several awards, the AAO determined that these did not place her among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The provided documentation did not show significant attention or acclaim consistent with the highly restrictive standards for this classification.
Published Material: The AAO found that the media coverage provided by the Petitioner was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The articles did not show that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Judging: The Petitioner participated as a judge in several photography competitions. However, the AAO determined that these were regional rather than national or international competitions. The Petitioner did not show that her judging experience contributed to her being considered at the top of her field.
Display of Work: While the Petitioner’s work was displayed at various exhibitions, the AAO concluded that she did not demonstrate that her work brought wide praise, drew notable crowds, or raised attendance at these events. The evidence did not show that her exhibitions reflected sustained national or international acclaim.
Letters of Recommendation: The Petitioner submitted letters praising her work. However, the AAO determined that the letters did not provide sufficient information to show that she is viewed by the overall field as garnering national or international acclaim. The letters did not establish that her work was impactful or influential in a manner consistent with the requirements for extraordinary ability.
Positions in Associations: The Petitioner served as vice chairwoman of several photography associations. However, the AAO concluded that these roles did not result in widespread acclaim or significant attention from the greater field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she meets the standards for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. While she satisfied some of the initial criteria, she did not show sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification. She should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in her field.
