Visa Petition Case

The Petitioner failed to respond to specific evidentiary shortcomings identified in an RFE, rendering those arguments procedurally barred on appeal. Substantively, the record lacked evidence of a one-time major achievement or documentation satisfying at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate being part of the small percentage at the very top of the field or having a career of acclaimed work.

The motion to reopen was dismissed due to a lack of new facts or documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the AAO found its reliance on Krasniqi v. Dibbins for merit-based awards was correct, the petitioner's awards were for participation, not excellence. The petitioner also failed to show error in the analysis of the leading or critical role criterion, or the high salary criterion, as no comparative evidence was provided to show the salary was high in relation to others in the field.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting three initial criteria. Evidence of published material about the Petitioner was limited to 2023-2024, failing to show sustained acclaim over a long period. A single article published in 1990 lacked evidence of citations or sustained acclaim. A leading or critical role in 2014 also lacked evidence of sustained acclaim. Contributions to employers were noted, but major significance to the broader field of Stage Construction and Engineering as it applies to Art, Theatre, and Film Production was not established. Furthermore, the record lacked comparative salary data to prove a high salary in relation to others in the field, which would indicate being at the very top.