Date of Decision: September 1, 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 and Technical Direction
Nationality: [Nationality Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
[Criterion 1]: Membership in Associations – The Petitioner presented evidence of membership in the Russian Music Union. However, it was noted that this membership was obtained after the petition was filed, and thus, could not be considered.
Criteria Not Met:
[Criterion 1]: Awards and Prizes – The Petitioner did not provide evidence of a major, internationally recognized award.
[Criterion 2]: Published Materials About the Petitioner – The Petitioner did not meet the criteria for published materials about their work.
[Criterion 3]: Original Contributions of Major Significance – The evidence submitted did not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.
[Criterion 4]: Participation as a Judge – There was no evidence provided to support the claim of participation as a judge of the work of others.
[Criterion 5]: Authorship of Scholarly Articles – No evidence of authorship of scholarly articles was submitted.
[Criterion 6]: Leading or Critical Role – The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of leading or critical roles within distinguished organizations.
[Criterion 7]: Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases – The Petitioner did not demonstrate participation in artistic exhibitions or showcases.
[Criterion 8]: High Salary or Remuneration – There was no evidence provided to demonstrate a high salary or remuneration.
[Criterion 9]: Commercial Success in the Performing Arts – The Petitioner did not submit evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner failed to provide evidence of a major, internationally recognized award, which is a critical component for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner did not submit any published materials that discuss their work or contributions to the field in a significant manner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence provided did not establish that the Petitioner’s work has made original contributions of major significance in the field of sound engineering and technical direction.
Participation as a Judge:
There was no supporting evidence submitted to prove that the Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in their field.
Membership in Associations:
While the Petitioner provided evidence of membership in the Russian Music Union, it was not considered because the membership was obtained after the filing date of the petition.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No evidence was submitted to demonstrate that the Petitioner authored scholarly articles in the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that they held a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations related to sound engineering and technical direction.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner did not submit evidence of participating in artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence was submitted to demonstrate that the Petitioner received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- Membership Certificate in the Russian Music Union: Documented but not considered due to the timing of the membership.
- Letters of Recommendation: Provided but did not sufficiently meet the evidentiary criteria.
- Portfolio of Work: Submitted but did not demonstrate the level of extraordinary ability required.
- Employment Records: Provided but did not show evidence of high salary or remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The evidence presented did not meet the requirements to overturn the initial decision.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering additional, stronger evidence that specifically addresses the criteria for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification before filing a new petition.
