EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Sound Engineer and Technical Director – MAR282023_01B2203

Date of Decision: March 28, 2023
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
• Nationality: Not specified in the document

Summary of Decision

• Initial Decision: Denied
• Appeal Outcome: Denied

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

1. Employment Contract: Evidence of employment as a senior sound director for a significant event in 2019.
2. Patent and Article: Information about a patent held by the petitioner and an article discussing it.
3. Membership: Membership in a professional association related to sound engineering.

Criteria Not Met:

1. Awards and Prizes: No major internationally recognized award was presented.
2. Published Materials: Insufficient evidence of materials published about the petitioner in major media.
3. Original Contributions: Lack of detailed evidence showing the significance of the petitioner’s original contributions.
4. Participation as a Judge: No evidence submitted for participation as a judge of others’ work.
5. Authorship of Scholarly Articles: No scholarly articles authored by the petitioner were provided.
6. Leading or Critical Role: Insufficient evidence of leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
7. Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: No evidence of artistic exhibitions or showcases.
8. High Salary or Remuneration: No evidence of a high salary or remuneration compared to others in the field.
9. Commercial Success: No evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won:

• The petitioner did not provide evidence of winning a major, internationally recognized award, which is a requirement for establishing extraordinary ability under the EB1 classification.

Published Materials About the Petitioner:

• The appeal did not include sufficient evidence of published materials in major media outlets discussing the petitioner’s work or achievements.

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• Although a patent was provided, there was a lack of detailed evidence supporting the claim that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance to the field.

Participation as a Judge:

• No evidence was submitted to show that the petitioner had participated as a judge of the work of others in the field of sound engineering.

Membership in Associations:

• The petitioner’s membership in a professional association was acknowledged but not deemed sufficient to meet the criteria as the association did not require outstanding achievements of its members.

Authorship of Scholarly Articles:

• The petitioner did not submit evidence of having authored scholarly articles in professional journals or major media.

Leading or Critical Role Performed:

• The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner held a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.

Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:

• No evidence was provided to show participation in artistic exhibitions or showcases.

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:

• There was no evidence submitted to indicate that the petitioner received a high salary or other significant remuneration compared to others in the field.

Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:

• The petitioner did not provide evidence of commercial success in the performing arts.

Supporting Documentation

• Employment Contract: Detailed the petitioner’s position as a senior sound director for a notable event in 2019.
• Patent and Article: Included an article about the petitioner’s patent and a copy of the patent itself.
• Membership Charter and Minutes: Provided documents related to the petitioner’s acceptance as a member of a professional association.
• Letter from Television Channel: Confirmed the petitioner’s employment as a senior sound director with additional information about the channel.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both dismissed.

Reasoning:

• The petitioner did not present new facts or sufficient evidence to support reopening the case.
• The petitioner failed to establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.

Next Steps:

• The petitioner may consider submitting a new Form I-140 petition with additional evidence to support the claims.

Download the Full Petition Review Here.