Date of Decision: DEC. 11, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Fashion Journalist
Field: Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Awards and Prizes:
The petitioner claimed three awards: February 14, 2012; June 30, 2011; and June 27, 2011. However, the certificates were similar in style and format, raising doubts about their authenticity. - Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Submitted articles were found to have discrepancies in publication dates and content that aligned too closely with regulatory language, suggesting they were fabricated.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No credible evidence was provided to support claims of original contributions. - Participation as a Judge:
No valid documentation was submitted to verify the petitioner’s participation as a judge in their field. - Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s membership claims were unsupported by independent evidence. - Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The submitted articles were not verified as genuinely published or widely recognized.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
- Summary of findings:
The claimed awards were found to be dubious due to their identical format and the petitioner’s lack of employment during the alleged award periods. - Key quotes or references:
“The Petitioner did not establish how she received three fashion journalism awards when she was not employed in the field at that time.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner
- Summary of findings:
The articles submitted by the petitioner were found to have numerous discrepancies and appeared to be tailored to meet the regulatory requirements. - Key quotes or references:
“The article indicates that it was published on ‘2011 December 2 Sunday.’ However, December 2, 2011, fell on a Friday.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance
- Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not provide credible evidence of original contributions in the field of fashion journalism. - Key quotes or references:
“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her remaining documentary evidence is reliable and sufficient to establish eligibility in support of the visa petition.”
Participation as a Judge
- Summary of findings:
No valid evidence was provided to support the petitioner’s claims of judging experience. - Key quotes or references:
“The articles contain language strikingly similar to the language in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).”
Membership in Associations
- Summary of findings:
The petitioner failed to provide independent, objective evidence of membership in recognized associations in the field. - Key quotes or references:
“The discrepancies and errors lead us to conclude that the evidence of the Petitioner’s achievements is neither true nor credible.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
- Summary of findings:
The articles provided were not verified as legitimate and were found to be inconsistent in their publication details. - Key quotes or references:
“The articles appear to have been written to conform to the requirements of the regulation.”
Supporting Documentation
- Award Certificates:
Three certificates submitted, found to be similar in format and dubious in authenticity. - Articles:
Three articles submitted, found to have discrepancies in dates and content. - Letters of Support:
Letters provided were not supported by independent verification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide credible, independent evidence to support the claims of extraordinary ability. Discrepancies and fabricated evidence led to the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet the regulatory criteria.
Next Steps: The petitioner should gather verifiable and independent documentation to support any future petitions.
