Date of Decision: March 26, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Photographer
Field: Photography
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The Petitioner submitted evidence of awards received in photography contests. However, the documentation was not sufficient to demonstrate that these awards placed her among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided media coverage of her work, including several articles. Nevertheless, the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the media coverage demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim.
Judging the Work of Others in the Field:
The Petitioner served as a judge in several photography contests. However, the evidence provided was not sufficient to establish that her judging experience placed her among the top in her field.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner exhibited her work at several notable photography festivals. However, the evidence did not establish that these exhibitions were indicative of her being among the small percentage at the top of her field.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner’s contributions were of major significance to the field of photography.
Leading or Critical Role in Distinguished Organizations:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she held leading or critical roles in organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner submitted evidence of awards from various photography competitions, including a commendation award in a prestigious national photography contest. However, the documentation was inconsistent and did not provide sufficient verification of the awards’ significance or recognition levels.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner submitted eight articles published between 2009 and 2019. These articles were deemed high quality but not sufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence did not support the claim that the Petitioner’s contributions had a major impact on the field of photography.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner judged several national photography competitions. However, the evidence was not sufficient to establish that her judging roles were indicative of her being among the top in her field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner claimed memberships in reputable photography associations. However, the evidence did not adequately demonstrate that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable or not sufficiently addressed in the decision.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner exhibited her work at notable photography festivals. However, the evidence did not establish that these exhibitions placed her among the top in her field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner provided new evidence of her earnings from photography sales and gallery operations. However, this evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that her earnings placed her among the top photographers in her field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable or not sufficiently addressed in the decision.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Certificates and Letters: Documentation of awards received from various photography contests.
Media Coverage: Articles and interviews highlighting the Petitioner’s work and achievements.
Judging Credentials: Letters and documentation of the Petitioner’s judging roles in photography competitions.
Exhibition Records: Evidence of the Petitioner’s participation in notable photography festivals.
Earnings Statements: Bank transaction history, contracts, and salary surveys indicating the Petitioner’s income from photography sales and gallery operations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider and the motion to reopen were both denied.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the previous decision was incorrect based on the evidence provided. The new evidence submitted on motion did not establish that the Petitioner met the criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, nor did it demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence to address the deficiencies identified in the decision and reapply or explore alternative immigration options.
