Date of Decision: August 4, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Sound Engineer and Technical Director
Field: Sound Engineering and Broadcasting
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner provided letters from a professor and a faculty dean confirming his role as a judge for the Examination Commission in Sound Engineering at a university. However, the evidence lacked specific dates, details, and corroborative documents, leading to the conclusion that this criterion was not satisfactorily met.
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner presented letters from professors, sound engineering professionals, and clients attesting to his skills and the development of a sound engineering technique. However, the lack of objective evidence, such as patents or widespread recognition of the technique, resulted in the criterion not being met.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration:
The petitioner submitted contract verification letters and income tax returns to demonstrate high remuneration. The Director found the salary comparisons insufficient, lacking probative details to establish that the petitioner’s remuneration was significantly high in relation to others in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner’s evidence was deemed insufficient due to lack of specific dates, corroborative documents, and details on his role and the field of judged work.
Original contributions of major significance:
The evidence did not establish the petitioner’s contributions had a significant impact on the field of sound engineering beyond his employers.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration:
The salary data provided was not appropriately compared to others in similar positions and geographic locations, and the total income did not clearly attribute to his role as a sound engineer and technical director.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s technique and skills were acknowledged, but lacked objective evidence of significant field impact.
- Key quotes or references: “While these and other letters attest to the Petitioner’s innate talent and considerable experience…they do not identify how he has made an original contribution of major significance.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The letters provided lacked sufficient details and corroborative evidence.
- Key quotes or references: “This letter alone is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner participated in qualifying judging activities.”
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: Insufficient comparative data and lack of clear evidence attributing income to his roles.
- Key quotes or references: “The evidence in the record is not sufficient to show that the Petitioner has commanded a high salary or significantly high remuneration.”
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Letter from Professor: Confirming petitioner’s role as a judge, but lacking specific details and corroborative documents.
- Letter from Faculty Dean: Verifying judging role without sufficient details and dates.
- Contract Verification Letters: Provided salary details which were found insufficient for comparative analysis.
- Income Tax Returns: Submitted to show total income without clear attribution to relevant roles.
- Email Printout: Instructions for the examination commission, not clearly addressed to the petitioner.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The documentation lacked necessary details, corroborative evidence, and objective proof of significant contributions to the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more detailed and comprehensive evidence to support future petitions or appeals.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
