Date of Decision: February 6, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Writer – Motivational Speaker – Magician
Field: Motivational Speaking and Magic
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media:
The petitioner submitted 27 articles and one document appearing to be an advertisement for a seminar. However, the translations were partial or extracted, lacking compliance with the required full English translations.
Criteria Not Met
Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor:
The petitioner’s awards were not nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate the awards’ recognition beyond the awarding entity.
Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members:
The petitioner did not claim eligibility for this criterion on appeal and it was not addressed.
Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field:
The petitioner did not provide evidence showing that his work has been unusually influential or widely applied throughout his field.
Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases:
The petitioner’s seminars, shows, and lectures did not meet this criterion, which generally applies to the visual arts.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his lectures and seminars resulted in significant contributions to the organizations’ successes or achievements.
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field:
The petitioner’s earnings were significantly lower than the average annual salaries of the professions in the documentation submitted. The petitioner did not demonstrate that he commanded a high salary compared to others in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The awards were not recognized nationally or internationally, and the petitioner’s submissions did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate such recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner’s articles lacked full translations and did not include sufficient evidence regarding the publications’ standing as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s work was not demonstrated to have been unusually influential or widely applied throughout the field.
Participation as a Judge:
- Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
- The petitioner did not claim eligibility for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner submitted letters from readers but did not provide documentation showing the impact of his work on the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- The letters provided did not establish that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- The petitioner did not demonstrate a high salary compared to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- 27 Articles and a Seminar Advertisement: Partial translations were provided, but they did not meet the full translation requirements.
- Letters from Employers: These letters confirmed the petitioner’s lectures and shows but did not demonstrate significant contributions to the organizations’ successes.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to satisfy at least three of the regulatory criteria. The documentation did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in the field of endeavor.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen the case using Form I-290B within 33 days of the decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
