Date of Decision: August 24, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Satellite Television News Producer
Field: News Production
Nationality: Chinese
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided a qualifying article in the publication, which presents an in-depth examination of emotions and passions news and is considered a scholarly article.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner served as a senior editor and deputy director of news at a noted satellite television company, which has a distinguished reputation.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his certificates and awards were nationally or internationally recognized. Awards received by the shows he produced did not name him as the recipient.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials submitted were not primarily about the petitioner or did not appear in major media. The petitioner did not corroborate the national distribution of the publication.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating his role as a judge of the work of others in the same field or an allied field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s reference letters were general and did not identify specific contributions or their influence in the field. There was no evidence from the media or other television stations confirming his influence at a level consistent with a contribution of major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner failed to provide evidence that his awards were recognized beyond his employer and did not meet the plain language of the criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s materials were either not about him or did not appear in major media, and there was no corroboration of national distribution.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
General reference letters did not provide specific examples of how the petitioner’s contributions influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s activities as a mentor and lecturer were not sufficient to demonstrate participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates from the petitioner’s employer, not recognized beyond the company.
- Media articles, interviews, and pieces about the petitioner and his employer, lacking evidence of major media status or national distribution.
- Reference letters from colleagues and professionals, general in nature, lacking specific examples of major contributions.
- Evidence of the petitioner’s role at the satellite television company, including letters from the vice president and published material confirming his critical role.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence criteria of either a one-time achievement or documentation meeting at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner’s burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought was not met.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of national or international recognition and reapplying, ensuring that the documentation clearly demonstrates meeting the required criteria.
