Date of Decision: March 26, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Production Professional
Field: Television and Motion Picture Industry
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner contributed to productions displayed at arts festivals and film festivals, including the Cannes International Film Festival, fulfilling this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements:
The Petitioner claimed membership in SAG-AFTRA, the Producers Guild of America, and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. However, evidence did not demonstrate that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published Material About the Alien in Professional or Major Trade Publications:
The Petitioner provided links to articles and interviews. However, these were not supported by documentary evidence to establish their status as major media or professional publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Reference letters alone were insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance to the field of movie and television production.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of authorship of scholarly articles published in professional or major trade publications.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable or not sufficiently addressed in the decision.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided links to several websites and radio/podcast interviews. However, these were not supported by documentary evidence to establish them as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The reference letters submitted did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance to the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable or not sufficiently addressed in the decision.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner claimed membership in SAG-AFTRA and other associations, but did not demonstrate that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of scholarly articles published in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility under this criterion. Although claimed on appeal, it was not sufficiently supported by evidence.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner met this criterion by contributing to productions displayed at arts and film festivals, including Cannes International Film Festival.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable or not sufficiently addressed in the decision.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable or not sufficiently addressed in the decision.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Membership: Documentation from SAG-AFTRA and other associations.
Media Coverage: Links to articles and interviews about the Petitioner’s work.
Reference Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts in the field attesting to the Petitioner’s contributions and achievements.
Film Festival Documentation: Evidence of films and productions in which the Petitioner was credited, displayed at various film festivals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that she met at least three of the evidentiary criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not sufficiently establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence to address the deficiencies identified in the decision and reapply or explore alternative immigration options.
