Date of Decision: June 11, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Television Producer
Field: Media Production
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Claimed:
The petitioner claimed to meet seven criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)–(viii). The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria as required.
- Membership in Associations:
- The petitioner’s membership in the Union of Journalists of the Republic of Kazakhstan did not meet the regulatory standard of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Articles provided were published after the petition filing date and lacked evidence of circulation data or prominence as major trade publications.
- Judging the Work of Others:
- Evidence of judging activities occurred after the filing date and did not demonstrate formal designation or relevance to the claimed field.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Letters from colleagues praised the petitioner’s contributions but failed to establish their major significance in the field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Claimed contributions included published interviews and non-academic materials that did not qualify as scholarly articles.
- Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions:
- This criterion was introduced for the first time on appeal and was not addressed during prior filings, rendering it inadmissible.
- Leading or Critical Role:
- The petitioner claimed to have held a critical role in production companies but failed to substantiate the organizations’ distinguished reputations or the impact of her roles.
Key Points from the Decision
Procedural Issues:
Evidence introduced after the petition filing date or first introduced on appeal was deemed inadmissible under USCIS procedural guidelines.
Evaluation of Contributions:
The petitioner’s work was noted as valuable within her organization but lacked evidence of major significance at a national or international level.
Membership and Judging Activities:
The claimed memberships and judging roles did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements due to insufficient documentation of prominence and timing issues.
Supporting Documentation
Membership Evidence: Membership in professional organizations lacked evidence of requiring outstanding achievements.
Published Material: Articles submitted lacked prominence and relevance under the EB-1 framework.
Expert Letters: Generalized and insufficient to establish major significance of contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility by meeting at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the top of her field.