Date of Decision: July 5, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Voice Actor
Field: Arts and Entertainment
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under multiple criteria but did not satisfy the required minimum of three evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).
Criteria Discussed:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner submitted articles mentioning his role as a dubbing director and voice actor.
- The articles were deemed insufficient because they primarily discussed the productions or reactions of audiences and provided only brief mentions of the petitioner.
- Metrics from SimilarWeb and other sources were provided but failed to establish the major media status of the publications.
- Commercial Success in the Performing Arts:
- The petitioner cited his participation in dubbing successful TV series and films.
- USCIS found no evidence that the productions’ commercial success was attributable to the petitioner’s specific work.
- Revenue data from IMDb was not given weight due to the platform’s user-edited nature, which lacks reliability.
Criteria Not Reached:
The AAO did not evaluate additional claimed criteria, including judging the work of others and the display of work, due to the failure to meet the minimum three criteria for consideration.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Material:
Articles submitted were insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Many focused on the productions or events and provided minimal coverage of the petitioner’s contributions.
Commercial Success:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his voice acting contributed significantly to the financial success of the productions, as required under EB-1 standards.
Final Merits Determination:
The AAO emphasized that EB-1 classification requires a very high standard of recognition and accomplishment, which was not demonstrated by the petitioner.
Supporting Documentation
Published Articles: Mentions of the petitioner in media but lacking prominence or focus on his specific work.
Commercial Success Evidence: Data related to box office and production revenue, but no corroboration linking the petitioner’s work to the financial achievements.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the regulatory requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field.
