Date of Decision: DEC 20, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Violinist
Field: Music Performance
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material About the Beneficiary: The Petitioner provided evidence of published material about the Beneficiary in various media outlets.
Participation as a Judge: The Beneficiary served as a judge of the work of others.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions: The Beneficiary’s work was displayed in artistic exhibitions and showcases.
Criteria Not Met:
Receipt of Lesser Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Beneficiary’s claimed awards were not recognized as nationally or internationally significant.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The Beneficiary’s claim of a major internationally recognized award was not accepted. The recognition as the fastest violinist did not qualify as a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Beneficiary: The Beneficiary had various published materials about him, which met this criterion. However, the extent of the acclaim from these publications did not establish his sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Beneficiary did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his contributions were of major significance in his field.
Participation as a Judge: The Beneficiary served as a judge of the work of others, which fulfilled this criterion. However, the overall significance of these judging activities was not enough to establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Membership in Associations: The Beneficiary did not demonstrate that his membership in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The document did not provide sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Beneficiary’s work was displayed in artistic exhibitions and showcases, meeting this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Beneficiary’s performances.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the Beneficiary’s roles and achievements.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to Reconsider Denied
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the initial decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The evidence provided did not establish that the Beneficiary had the necessary sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of the Beneficiary’s contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
