Date of Decision: May 23, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Producer
Field: Short Films, Commercials, and Music Videos
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases: The petitioner provided evidence that his work as an executive producer for short films was displayed at several international film festivals, including the 2018 [Film Festival].
Evidence of the alien’s participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field: The petitioner served as a jury member for the National Association of Advertisers (ANDA) awards in 2011 and 2012, and was invited to serve in 2015.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation: The petitioner was a founding partner and executive producer of a production firm that received several ANDA awards and was recognized as one of the top production companies.
Criteria Not Met:
Evidence of the alien’s receipt of major, internationally recognized awards: The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving any major, internationally recognized awards.
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media: The petitioner’s submitted evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Evidence of the alien’s original contributions of major significance in the field: The petitioner’s contributions were acknowledged but not shown to elevate his standing to the top of his field.
Authorship of scholarly articles in the field: The petitioner did not provide evidence of authoring scholarly articles.
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services: The petitioner’s salary evidence was not supported by a reliable indicator for comparison with others in the field.
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts: The petitioner did not provide evidence demonstrating significant commercial successes in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The petitioner’s production company received several ANDA awards between 2012 and 2016.
- The petitioner’s previous employer received several ANDA awards during his employment there, but documentation was insufficient.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Articles and media coverage primarily mentioned the petitioner’s company rather than him directly, failing to demonstrate personal acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s work on short films and music videos was acknowledged, but it did not establish his standing among the top in his field.
Participation as a Judge:
- The petitioner’s role as a judge in national awards demonstrates recognition, but not sustained acclaim.
Membership in Associations:
- Not specifically discussed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- The petitioner’s executive role in his production company was recognized but did not show sustained acclaim.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- The petitioner’s short films were showcased at various film festivals, fulfilling one criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- The petitioner’s salary evidence was insufficiently supported and not reliable for comparison.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- ANDA Awards Certificates: Provided to demonstrate awards won by the petitioner’s company.
- Film Festival Participation Certificates: Showcased petitioner’s work screened at various festivals.
- Letters from Industry Professionals: Described the petitioner’s role and contributions in various projects.
- Salary Statements: Submitted to demonstrate earnings but were not sufficiently supported.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the top of his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner needs to address the deficiencies identified in the decision and provide additional evidence if seeking further proceedings.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 17286250
Document: MAY232022_01B2203
