Date of Decision: September 20, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Screenwriter and Story Consultant
Field: Screenwriting and Story Consultancy
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Artistic Display of Work: The Petitioner adapted several children’s plays produced at the Theatre for the I Festival.
- Judging Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a judge of screenplays for the I film festival and the I screenplay competition for several years.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The articles and reviews submitted did not discuss the Petitioner’s career, background, or personal elements sufficiently to meet this criterion.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence provided did not establish the Petitioner’s work as having a significant impact on the field of playwriting or screenwriting.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that her articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media targeted exclusively at learned persons in her field.
- Leading or Critical Role: The roles described were not established as leading or critical within distinguished organizations, nor was it shown that these organizations had a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The evidence did not establish that the Petitioner received a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The material did not sufficiently focus on the Petitioner’s career or personal achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The contributions were not shown to have significantly impacted the field of screenwriting or playwriting.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s service as a judge was recognized but did not contribute significantly to the overall organization.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The articles did not meet the criteria of being scholarly or published in major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The roles were not established as leading or critical, nor were the organizations shown to have distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s plays were adapted and produced but did not establish her work as a major contribution to the field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Theatrical Reviews: Provided reviews did not discuss the Petitioner sufficiently.
- Letters of Reference: Letters did not establish the Petitioner’s contributions as significantly impacting the field.
- Published Articles: Articles did not meet the scholarly criteria or target a professional audience exclusively.
- Judging Participation: Evidence supported the Petitioner’s role as a judge but did not demonstrate significant impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed
Reasoning:
- The Petitioner did not establish that she received a major, internationally recognized award or met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required.
- The evidence did not support the claim of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner was among the few at the top of her field.
Next Steps:
- Recommendations or next steps for the petitioner: It is recommended that the Petitioner provide more substantial evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and a greater impact on her field if considering a future petition.
