Date of Decision: February 12, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Fashion Producer
Field: Fashion Production
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner submitted various letters of support discussing her work in the fashion production field. However, the evidence provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that her contributions were of major significance to the field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner claimed her work was showcased at numerous events and fashion shows, but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the criterion of her work being displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases. - Leading or Critical Role for Organizations or Establishments with Distinguished Reputations:
While the petitioner provided letters from various individuals and organizations asserting her leading role, there was a lack of substantial evidence proving that these organizations had distinguished reputations or that her role was critical to their success. - High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration for Services:
The petitioner submitted tax returns and salary surveys but did not present sufficient comparative evidence to establish that her salary was significantly high relative to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of Findings:
The petitioner’s references highlighted her talent and influence in the fashion industry, but did not provide specific examples of how her work was of major significance. - Key Quotes or References:
- “Her work includes major creative contributions on behalf of leading companies such as…”
- “She has established herself as one of the premier marketing consultants in fashion.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of Findings:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published materials specifically about her work and contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of Findings:
There was no evidence submitted indicating that the petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in her field.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of Findings:
No evidence was provided to support that the petitioner held memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of Findings:
The petitioner did not submit evidence of authoring scholarly articles in her field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of Findings:
The petitioner’s evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that her role was leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of Findings:
The petitioner did not provide adequate comparative salary data to prove that her remuneration was significantly high.
Supporting Documentation
- List of Supporting Documents and Summaries:
- Letters of support from various industry professionals.
- Tax returns from 2012 and 2013.
- Wage data from various sources.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements and failed to establish her eligibility for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The petitioner may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen the case within 33 days of the decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
