Date of Decision: August 29, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Television Host
Field: Entertainment
Nationality: Ukrainian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The Director determined that the Petitioner met the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) by participating as a judge in competitions within his field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards and Prizes: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his awards from Telenedelya and Cosmopolitan were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. Additionally, five claimed awards for a reality TV show did not identify him as the recipient.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: The Petitioner submitted several articles, but many did not meet the requirement of identifying the author or demonstrating significance in professional or major trade publications.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original work, such as TV shows and social media following, rose to the level of major significance in the field of entertainment.
- Leading or Critical Role: Although the Petitioner played a leading role as a TV host, the evidence did not establish that the organizations or shows had a distinguished reputation.
- Commercial Successes: The provided evidence, including letters and YouTube view counts, did not sufficiently demonstrate commercial success relative to others in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his awards were recognized for excellence on a national or international level. The submitted evidence did not meet the criteria for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
While articles were submitted, they often lacked proper identification of authors or did not relate significantly to the Petitioner’s work in the field. The circulation and impact of these publications were not adequately established.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence provided, including letters from colleagues and promotional materials, did not demonstrate contributions of major significance. The Petitioner’s social media following and endorsements were not sufficient to meet this criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner met the criterion of participating as a judge, but this alone was not sufficient to fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria.
Membership in Associations:
No significant evidence was provided to support membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No scholarly articles authored by the Petitioner were mentioned or submitted.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Although the Petitioner played a prominent role in TV shows, the evidence did not establish the distinguished reputation of the organizations or shows he was associated with.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
No evidence was submitted for artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The high salary criterion was reserved as the Petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of three criteria.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The evidence of commercial success, such as TV ratings and sponsorships, was insufficient to establish significant commercial success in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- Articles on Cosmopolitan Magazine’s Circulation: Provided information on the popularity of Cosmopolitan magazine in Ukraine but did not sufficiently connect to the Petitioner’s awards.
- Letters from Production Companies: Detailed the Petitioner’s role in TV shows but did not establish a distinguished reputation of the organizations.
- YouTube Screenshots and Social Media Metrics: Highlighted the Petitioner’s online presence but were not adequate to prove major contributions or commercial success.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner’s achievements were recognized through sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering additional, more robust evidence of extraordinary ability or explore other immigration pathways that may be better suited to their profile and achievements.
