Date of Decision: July 29, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Image Consultant
Field: Beauty Pageant Coaching and Image Consulting
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The Petitioner, an image consultant who coaches beauty pageant contestants, sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal upon de novo review.
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner satisfied this criterion through her role as a judge for various beauty pageants.
Criteria Not Met
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner submitted copies of newspaper articles, primarily discussing individual pageant contestants. The articles identified the Petitioner as the contestants’ trainer but did not focus on her. The AAO determined that these articles did not meet the requirement for published material about the Petitioner in professional or major media.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner claimed her work was displayed at pageant competitions and fashion shows. However, the AAO found that the primary purpose of beauty pageants is competitive, not artistic. The AAO also noted that it is the contestants, not the Petitioner, who are evaluated and awarded titles.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed to perform leading roles in her organization and in television productions. The AAO concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that her organization or the television programs had distinguished reputations or that her roles were critical to their success. The AAO also noted that her involvement as an independent producer did not equate to a critical role for the television station broadcasting her program.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner provided income statements and work agreements but did not sufficiently demonstrate that her earnings were high relative to others in her field. The AAO found that her income was derived from multiple sources and did not provide a clear basis for comparison.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The Petitioner’s achievements, while notable, did not rise to the level required for extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The Petitioner should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in her field.
