Date of Decision: August 10, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Post Production Designer and Animator
Field: Advertising, Media, Television, and Film
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field:
The petitioner claimed awards that his company received, not individual awards. Additionally, translations of foreign documents were not certified as “full,” “complete and accurate,” and the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating national or international recognition.
Published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media:
The petitioner provided articles that were not properly certified translations and lacked information about the publishers. Most articles were about the industry or entities where the petitioner worked, not about the petitioner himself.
Evidence of the alien’s original contributions of major significance in the field:
The petitioner presented testimonial letters, publications, and presentations, but did not demonstrate the major significance or originality of his contributions. There was no substantial evidence of the impact of his work in the field.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation:
Although the petitioner submitted letters and claimed leading roles, he did not provide sufficient evidence of the distinguished reputation of the organizations or the critical nature of his role.
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field:
The petitioner presented a contract with a high salary offer, but did not provide evidence of actual payment or comparative data to demonstrate the salary was high relative to others in the industry.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner failed to provide evidence of receiving individual awards that were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field. The awards mentioned were granted to his company, not him personally.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles provided were not properly certified, lacked information about the publications, and were generally about the industry or entities rather than the petitioner himself.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The testimonial letters and publications did not demonstrate the originality or major significance of the petitioner’s contributions. There was no substantial evidence of the impact of his work in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
No evidence provided.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner claimed leading roles in various projects, but did not provide sufficient evidence of the distinguished reputation of the organizations or the critical nature of his role.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of commanding a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
- Screen prints of awards websites: Not certified as full and accurate translations.
- Articles about the petitioner: Not properly certified translations and lacked information about the publishers.
- Testimonial letters: Did not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner’s contributions as original or of major significance.
- Contract with a high salary offer: Lacked evidence of actual payment or comparative data to show high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim or had risen to the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence to meet the required criteria or exploring other visa options.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
