Date of Decision: December 18, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Television and Movie Production
Petitioner Information
Profession: Television and Movie Producer
Field: Television and Movie Production
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner met the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) by demonstrating publication of his work in professional journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that he received nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field. The awards mentioned were received by the productions he worked on rather than by him personally, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his memberships in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The memberships did not establish the criteria required for membership as indicative of extraordinary ability, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Published Material: The Petitioner provided articles that briefly mentioned his name or quoted him, but did not demonstrate that the articles were primarily about him or published in major media. The articles were about events he participated in, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field. The letters provided praised his skills but did not establish the impact of his contributions on the field as a whole, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles that mentioned his name but did not establish these as major media or primarily about him.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner did not establish that he participated as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not establish that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not establish his roles as leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, articles, and evidence of his work. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner satisfied the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles, the evidence provided did not establish his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards, published material in major media about him, or original contributions of major significance. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
