Date of Decision: DEC. 10, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Television Presenter and Actress
Field: Entertainment Industry
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Artistic Display of Work:
The petitioner modeled for fashion shows and performed as an actress in television soap operas, satisfying the criterion for the artistic display of her work.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner claimed eligibility based on membership with the Union of Artists and Technicians for Entertainment Shows and the Union of Professional Journalists. However, the memberships did not demonstrate outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published Material:
The petitioner submitted articles and photographs, but they lacked the necessary identification of the author and date. Additionally, the materials did not qualify as major media or provide sufficient coverage of the petitioner’s work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The letters of support lacked specific examples of how the petitioner’s work constituted original contributions of major significance in her field. The provided examples did not sufficiently demonstrate significant impact or influence in the field.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide comparative evidence demonstrating that her remuneration was high relative to others in her field. The documentation included salary figures but did not show how they compared to similar roles in the industry.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not provide evidence showing that her work directly contributed to the commercial success of the projects she was involved in. The success of companies and television shows was not attributed specifically to her work.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of Findings:
No specific awards or prizes were mentioned as part of the evidence submitted.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of Findings:
The submitted materials briefly mentioned the petitioner or included her photograph, but they did not meet the regulatory requirements for published material.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of Findings:
The provided letters did not sufficiently detail the petitioner’s contributions to demonstrate their major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of Findings:
There was no mention of the petitioner serving as a judge in her field.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of Findings:
The associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts for membership.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of Findings:
No scholarly articles authored by the petitioner were mentioned in the evidence.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of Findings:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role in her projects.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of Findings:
The petitioner’s participation in fashion shows and television soap operas satisfied the artistic display criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of Findings:
The petitioner did not provide comparative evidence to show her salary was significantly high relative to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of Findings:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate commercial successes attributable to her work.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Support:
Provided letters lacked specific examples of major contributions. - Published Articles and Photographs:
The articles did not meet regulatory criteria for authorship and date, nor did they qualify as major media. - Income Statements and Contracts:
Documents reflected earnings but did not provide comparative salary data. - Membership Bylaws and Letters:
Membership criteria did not demonstrate outstanding achievements judged by experts.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not satisfy the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps:
Recommendations or next steps for the petitioner are not specified in the decision.
