Date of Decision: August 25, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Makeup Artist
Field: Beauty Industry
Nationality: [Not Provided in Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in her field, fulfilling this criterion.
Display at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The petitioner displayed her work at various artistic exhibitions, meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner submitted certificates from the OMC Europe Cup and other competitions, but these did not demonstrate that the awards were given for excellence in the field of endeavor or that they were nationally or internationally recognized.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s membership in the Union of Hairdressers and Cosmetologists of Russia (UHCR) did not meet the criterion as it did not establish that the association required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published Material: The petitioner provided articles from various sources, but they did not establish that the publications were major media or professional trade publications. Brief mentions of the petitioner within articles did not meet the requirement for published material about her and her work.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s certificates from competitions were found to be insufficient to demonstrate that they were awarded for excellence or that they were nationally or internationally recognized.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted various articles, but they were not found to be from major media or professional trade publications. Brief mentions of the petitioner within these articles did not meet the requirement for published material about her and her work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not evaluated, as the petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of at least three criteria.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated her role in judging the work of others through her participation in artistic competitions.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s membership in UHCR was not sufficient to meet the criterion, as the evidence did not establish that the association required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable, as no authorship of scholarly articles was discussed.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner initially decided not to pursue this criterion and did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner’s work was displayed at numerous artistic exhibitions, fulfilling this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner provided salary evidence, but the comparative data did not demonstrate that her salary was significantly high relative to others in her field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Provided letters from professionals recognizing the petitioner’s roles and contributions. However, these letters were insufficient to establish the petitioner’s eligibility under the claimed criteria.
Award Documents: Included documentation of certificates from competitions, but these did not establish that the awards were given for excellence or were nationally or internationally recognized.
Published Articles: Included several articles about the petitioner’s work, but the brief mentions within the articles and the sources’ credibility were insufficient.
Salary Documents: Included salary information but did not offer a reliable basis for comparison to others in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in her field. The evidence provided was found to be insufficient to establish her eligibility for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive and corroborative evidence to support her claims, focusing on independent recognition and demonstrating how her work has had a significant impact on her field.
