Date of Decision: November 15, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Television and Film Producer
Field: Television and Film Production
Nationality: [Nationality not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Published Material About the Petitioner: Evidence was provided indicating published material about the petitioner, which was initially recognized but later not adequately analyzed by the Director.
Criterion 2: [Criterion not specified as met in the document]
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Awards: The Director did not find sufficient evidence supporting the petitioner’s claim of significant awards.
Criterion 2: Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The evidence submitted was deemed insufficient and possibly fabricated.
Criterion 3: Leading or Critical Roles: The Director determined that the evidence, including recommendation letters, was not credible.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Director’s analysis questioned the authenticity and significance of the awards presented by the petitioner. Specific inconsistencies were noted, but not explicitly detailed.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
While initially considered to meet the criteria, the Director later dismissed this without a clear analysis. The petitioner had provided published articles regarding his short films screened at film festivals.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not explicitly detailed in the decision.
Participation as a Judge:
Not mentioned.
Membership in Associations:
Not mentioned.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not mentioned.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish his role as leading or critical, citing concerns over the authenticity of the provided documentation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Evidence of the petitioner’s work displayed at exhibitions or showcases was questioned, and the Director suggested the materials might have been fabricated.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not maintain this criterion in his responses to the NOIDs or on appeal.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not mentioned.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Recommendation: Provided by various industry professionals, reaffirming the petitioner’s roles and contributions. The authenticity was questioned by the Director.
- Published Articles: Articles regarding the screening of the petitioner’s short films at film festivals were provided, but not adequately considered in the final decision.
- Award Certificates: Submitted to demonstrate recognition in his field, but inconsistencies were noted without detailed explanation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further consideration.
Reasoning:
The Director failed to provide specific information explaining the proposed grounds for denial and did not adequately consider the petitioner’s responses to the Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). The decision lacked detailed analysis and did not verify the authenticity of the evidence submitted.
Next Steps:
The Director should re-evaluate all the documentation initially submitted by the petitioner, along with his responses to the NOIDs and arguments on appeal. A new decision should be entered following a thorough and specific analysis of the evidence.
