Date of Decision: November 30, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Hair Stylist
Field: Fashion and Film Industry
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards and Prizes (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)): The Petitioner provided evidence of awards related to hairstyling competitions.
Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)): The Petitioner claimed roles in significant projects, including guest lectures and film production work, but failed to substantiate these claims with sufficient documentation.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)): The Petitioner failed to provide adequate evidence that articles about his work appeared in professional, major trade, or major media publications.
Judging the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)): The Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate participation as a judge in relevant professional contexts.
Original Contributions (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)): Insufficient evidence was provided to prove significant original contributions in the field.
Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)): The Petitioner did not assert eligibility under this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)): The Petitioner did not assert eligibility under this criterion.
Display of Work (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)): The Petitioner did not assert eligibility under this criterion.
High Salary or Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)): The Petitioner did not assert eligibility under this criterion.
Commercial Success (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x)): The Petitioner did not assert eligibility under this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner provided evidence of awards related to hairstyling competitions, but the significance of these awards was not sufficient to meet the criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles submitted did not meet the requirements for being in professional, major trade, or major media publications. The publications were local and did not demonstrate significant circulation or intended audience relevant to the criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence provided did not substantiate claims of significant original contributions in the field of hairstyling.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner’s participation as a judge was not adequately documented. The provided evidence lacked details on the events, criteria for judging, and the significance of the judging roles.
Membership in Associations:
This criterion was not addressed by the Petitioner.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
This criterion was not addressed by the Petitioner.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
While the Petitioner claimed leading roles in various projects, the documentation was insufficient to substantiate these claims. The roles were not clearly defined or supported by the organizations involved.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
This criterion was not addressed by the Petitioner.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
This criterion was not addressed by the Petitioner.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
This criterion was not addressed by the Petitioner.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from colleagues and industry professionals: Summarized the Petitioner’s contributions but lacked specificity and corroborating evidence.
- Articles and publications: Discussed the Petitioner’s achievements but were not from qualifying publications.
- Event participation documentation: Insufficient to prove judging roles or leading roles in significant projects.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidentiary criteria of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten alternate criteria. The documentation provided was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in the field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence and documentation to support a future petition or explore other visa options that may be more suitable to their qualifications and career achievements.
