Date of Decision: March 1, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Pianist and Music Educator
Field: Music
Nationality: [Not specified in the provided text]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner provided evidence of published articles in reputable journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the awards received were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of music.
Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that her memberships in various associations required outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media: The Petitioner submitted materials that did not meet the criteria of being published in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate participation as a judge in her field.
Original contributions of major significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish original contributions of major significance in her field.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her roles were leading or critical to the success of the organizations she worked for.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to show that her salary was high relative to others in her field.
Commercial successes in the performing arts: The Petitioner did not demonstrate commercial success in the performing arts, which was not applicable to her field of music education and performance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner received awards, but they were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of music.
Key quotes or references: “The evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not show that the Beneficiary received the awards as claimed.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided articles that were not about her or published in major media.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish original contributions of major significance.
Key quotes or references: Not applicable.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate participation as a judge in her field.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not establish that she served, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others.”
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that her memberships required outstanding achievements.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate that her memberships in various associations required outstanding achievements.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided evidence of published articles in reputable journals.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has authored scholarly articles published in reputable journals, fulfilling this criterion.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show her roles were leading or critical.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not established that she satisfies the requirements of this criterion.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show her salary was high relative to others in her field.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate that she commanded a high salary in relation to others in her field.”
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Documentation: Evidence of organizational awards, but not individual recognition.
Membership Documentation: Memberships in various associations.
Judging Activities: Participation in events, but not as a judge.
Income Documentation: Inadequate comparison of salary with appropriate job category.
Published Articles: Copies of scholarly articles published in reputable journals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded.
Reasoning: The Director did not give sufficient consideration to the Petitioner’s response to the Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and did not adequately support the finding of willful misrepresentation. The decision lacked detailed analysis of the evidence submitted in support of certain evidentiary criteria.
Next Steps
Recommendations: The Petitioner should provide more robust and independent evidence of her sustained impact and significance within the field, secure credible letters of support, and address the issues raised regarding the alleged misrepresentation. The matter will be reconsidered with a new decision to be made.
