Date of Decision: June 11, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Theater Company
Field: Performing Arts
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Published Material About the Beneficiary
The petitioner provided evidence of published material about the beneficiary in professional or major trade publications, meeting this criterion.
Criterion 2: Leading or Critical Role
The petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary played a leading or critical role in a theater company with a distinguished reputation, fulfilling this criterion.
Criterion 3: Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
The petitioner showed that the beneficiary’s work had been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases, meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary made original contributions of major significance in the field. However, the provided evidence did not sufficiently articulate how these contributions were of major significance to the field of performing arts.
Criterion 2: Membership in Associations
The petitioner did not provide evidence that the beneficiary’s memberships in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Criterion 3: Judging the Work of Others
The evidence did not demonstrate that the beneficiary had served as a judge of the work of others in the field of performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Beneficiary:
The petitioner provided several articles and publications that featured the beneficiary, meeting the criterion for published material.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how the beneficiary’s contributions were of major significance to the field.
Participation as a Judge: Not applicable
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the beneficiary’s memberships requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the beneficiary held a leading or critical role within a distinguished theater company.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The beneficiary’s work was displayed in several artistic exhibitions and showcases, fulfilling this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the beneficiary’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the beneficiary’s contributions and roles.
Exhibition Records: Documentation of the beneficiary’s work being displayed in artistic exhibitions and showcases.
Employment Records: Documentation of the beneficiary’s leading role in the theater company.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that the previous decision dismissing the motion to reconsider was incorrect based on the evidence in the record. The resubmission of the motion was late due to an incorrect date on the check provided. The petitioner did not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider, as it did not establish an incorrect application of law or policy in the previous decision.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of the beneficiary’s extraordinary ability, focusing on awards with national or international recognition, significant contributions, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
