EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Stage Construction and Engineering Expert – OCT012024_01B2203

Date of Decision: October 1, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability

Petitioner Information

Profession: Stage Construction and Engineering Expert
Field: Stage Construction and Engineering for Art, Theatre, and Film Production
Nationality: Not specified in the document

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

The petitioner sought to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). While the petitioner satisfied three criteria, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) concluded that the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Criteria Met:

1. Published Material About the Petitioner:
   • The petitioner submitted articles about his work in stage construction and engineering, published in 2023 and 2024.
2. Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
   • The petitioner authored a single article in 1990, which was cited in professional discussions related to stage construction and engineering.
3. Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
   • The petitioner served in a leading role for an organization in 2014, contributing to significant engineering projects.

Criteria Not Met:

1. Original Contributions of Major Significance:
   • Evidence of contributions to stage construction was limited to internal employer recognition and lacked proof of broader field-wide impact.
2. High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration:
   • The petitioner failed to provide evidence of a salary or remuneration significantly higher than others in the field.
3. Sustained National or International Acclaim:
   • Published material and leadership roles did not demonstrate acclaim over an extended period or field-wide recognition.

Key Points from the Decision

Published Material:

• The petitioner’s published articles were limited to recent years, which the AAO determined did not reflect sustained acclaim.

Original Contributions:

• Contributions cited were primarily relevant to the petitioner’s employers, without evidence of significant impact on the broader field.

Leadership and Salary Evidence:

• Evidence of a leading role was limited to a single organization in 2014, and no salary data was provided to demonstrate significantly high remuneration.

Final Merits Determination:

• The AAO concluded that while the petitioner satisfied three criteria, the totality of the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Supporting Documentation

Published Material Evidence: Articles published in 2023 and 2024 discussing the petitioner’s work.
Authorship Evidence: A scholarly article authored in 1990, with no subsequent citations or field-wide impact.
Leadership Evidence: Documentation of a leading role in a distinguished organization in 2014.
Contribution Evidence: Employer recognition of contributions, lacking evidence of broader field-wide significance.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of stage construction and engineering for art, theatre, and film production.

Download The Full Petition Review Here