Date of Decision: June 25, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Designer
Field: Fashion Design
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Display of Work in Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner displayed her work in national and international fashion competitions and theatrical performances, satisfying this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to establish that her memberships in various design unions required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published Material About the Individual: The articles provided either did not focus on the Petitioner or lacked sufficient evidence to qualify as major media or professional publications.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that she actually performed judging tasks before the filing date of the petition.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The letters and documentation provided did not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner’s work had a major impact on the field of fashion design as a whole.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner did not provide evidence that her articles were scholarly in nature or published in major trade publications.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The provided articles did not sufficiently focus on the Petitioner or qualify as major media publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The documentation did not demonstrate a significant impact on the field at large.
Participation as a Judge: There was insufficient evidence to show that the Petitioner performed judging tasks relevant to the criteria.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to meet this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
Membership Cards and Letters: The Petitioner provided membership cards and letters from various design unions, but they lacked detailed information about the membership criteria and the role of recognized experts in the selection process.
Media Articles: Several articles mentioned the Petitioner, but they did not provide sufficient evidence of being published in major media or professional publications.
Letters of Support: Various letters praised the Petitioner’s work but did not provide specific examples of its major significance in the field.
Fashion Show and Competition Participation: Evidence of the Petitioner’s participation in fashion shows and competitions was provided, satisfying one criterion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria. The documentation and letters submitted did not establish that her contributions were of major significance to the field or that she had received recognition through major media or associations requiring outstanding achievements. The appeal was dismissed based on the lack of evidence to meet the initial evidentiary requirements.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive evidence that specifically addresses the criteria for EB1 extraordinary ability classification, particularly focusing on providing detailed documentation of achievements recognized by major media, professional associations, and their significant impact on the field.
