Date of Decision: January 10, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Writer and Filmmaker
Field: Literature and Film
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in provided document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None: The petitioner did not meet the required criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that they judged the work of others as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Evidence submitted included claims of participation in film festival juries, but these were either not previously asserted or involved new instances not presented during the original appeal.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not meet the contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Claims regarding contributions were either not previously advanced or included new instances postdating the petition filing.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Evidence of publications featuring the petitioner, such as a 2022 article, was not considered as it postdated the petition filing date.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of a one-time major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Newly submitted articles were not accepted as they postdated the petition filing.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Claims of significant contributions were either not presented initially or abandoned during the appeal.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner did not meet the judging criterion due to the introduction of new claims not previously submitted.
Supporting Documentation
The motion to reopen included:
- Claims of judging at various film festivals.
- New articles featuring the petitioner.
- Evidence postdating the initial petition filing.
However, these documents were not considered as they either introduced new facts not previously submitted or were created after the petition filing date.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not satisfy the requirements for a motion to reopen. The evidence provided did not demonstrate eligibility at the time of the original petition filing. Specifically, the petitioner did not meet the criteria for judging the work of others or for original contributions of major significance.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may submit a new Form I-140 with appropriate evidence. It is recommended to ensure that all claims and supporting documents are included at the time of the initial filing and that they clearly demonstrate eligibility as of the filing date.
