Date of Decision: July 8, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Stage Actor
Field: Performing Arts (Theater)
Nationality: Chinese
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner provided articles discussing their work in the field of acting.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Evidence of contributions to theater in China through published articles and leadership roles in the arts center.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner served as director of a prestigious arts center, fulfilling this criterion.
Final Merits Determination:
Despite meeting three regulatory criteria, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that they are among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Material About the Petitioner:
While the petitioner provided examples of articles, these did not demonstrate significant influence on the acting field nationally or internationally.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed significant contributions through their work and leadership; however, evidence lacked documentation of broader impact or major significance beyond the petitioner’s immediate organization.
Performance in a Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner demonstrated a leadership role at a prominent Chinese arts center but did not provide sufficient evidence of how this role contributed to their claim of extraordinary ability.
Director’s Final Analysis:
The Director found that, while the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, the type and quality of evidence presented did not establish that the petitioner has risen to the very top of their field.
Other Issues Not Reached:
Due to the lack of evidence of sustained acclaim, the AAO did not address the petitioner’s intent to continue working in the field in the United States.
Supporting Documentation
Published Articles: Provided but lacked documentation of influence on the broader acting field.
Leadership Evidence: Evidence of directorial roles in a recognized arts center.
Contribution Claims: Letters and materials supporting work but insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of their field.
