Date of Decision: September 13, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Television Host
- Field: Broadcasting/Entertainment
- Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the provided document]
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a judge: The petitioner fulfilled this criterion by participating as a judge of others’ work.
Criteria Not Met:
- Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The awards presented were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized within the field.
- Published material in major media: The published articles did not meet the requirements due to lack of proper author identification and insufficient demonstration of major media significance.
- Original contributions of major significance: The contributions presented were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field.
- Leading or critical role: The roles were not sufficiently documented to show leading or critical importance, nor was the distinguished reputation of the organizations established.
- Commercial successes in the performing arts: The evidence did not adequately show commercial success through sales or receipts in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Telenedelya Magazine’s Prize (2014): Awarded based on votes from Ukrainian TV viewers, lacked evidence of field-wide recognition.
- Cosmopolitan Magazine’s Ukrainian Edition Award (2019): Similar voting basis, insufficient evidence of national or international significance.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Cosmopolitan (Ukrainian Edition), National Geographic (Russian Edition), Otdokhni!, Hello! (Russian Edition), GQ (Russian Edition): Articles provided but lacked author identification and significant impact evidence.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Television Shows Created and Hosted: Various shows claimed to be successful, but lacking detailed evidence of major industry impact or significant influence.
Participation as a Judge:
- Documented Participation: Met the criterion of judging others’ work, fulfilling one of the necessary criteria.
Membership in Associations:
- Not Documented: No evidence provided regarding membership in significant professional associations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Not Documented: No evidence of authorship of scholarly articles provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Television Shows and City Projects: Roles in various projects described but not sufficiently documented as leading or critical within organizations with distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not Documented: No evidence provided of artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not Reached: This criterion was not assessed as the petitioner did not fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Insufficient Evidence: Lacked adequate documentation of box office receipts or significant sales.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards: Documents showing voting-based awards without substantial field-wide recognition.
- Media Articles: Various articles without sufficient evidence of major media impact.
- Letters of Support: General statements from colleagues and industry professionals lacking detailed evidence.
- YouTube and Social Media Data: Insufficient to demonstrate significant contributions or commercial success.
Conclusion
- Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability.
- Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements and did not show sustained national or international acclaim.
- Next Steps: The petitioner may consider reapplying with stronger evidence or seek other visa classifications that may be more appropriate to their credentials and achievements.
