Date of Decision: July 3, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Makeup Artist
Field: Fashion and Beauty
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed both motions due to failure to present new facts or evidence and failure to establish incorrect application of law or policy.
Criteria Discussed:
- Membership in Associations:
- The petitioner referenced membership in the Theater Union of Moldova (UNITEM) and submitted its bylaws.
- The AAO concluded that UNITEM did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts, failing to meet the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
- Judging the Work of Others:
- The petitioner claimed to have judged work in a fashion project, but the evidence lacked critical details, including dates, individuals judged, and the relevance of the judging role to the field.
- Photos and jury paperwork submitted were insufficient to meet the regulatory criterion.
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- A letter from an expert failed to corroborate the petitioner’s claims of commanding a high salary. Missing documentation, such as payroll records and comparative salary data, weakened the claim.
Key Points from the Decision
Membership in Associations:
The AAO noted that while UNITEM is a professional organization, membership does not require outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized experts.
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner’s evidence did not provide sufficient details to establish participation as a judge under the regulatory requirements. Issues included unclear documentation and lack of independent verification.
High Salary Evidence:
The petitioner’s expert letter was deemed insufficient due to lack of corroborating financial documentation and comparative data specific to the field in Moldova.
Failure to Meet Motion Requirements:
- The motion to reopen failed to present new facts supported by evidence, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
- The motion to reconsider did not demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).
Supporting Documentation
Membership Evidence: Submitted bylaws of UNITEM but failed to meet regulatory standards.
Judging Activities: Photos and jury documentation provided but lacked critical details.
Salary Evidence: Expert letter unsupported by payroll, bank, or tax statements.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to present new evidence or demonstrate incorrect application of law or policy. The record does not establish eligibility for EB-1 extraordinary ability classification.
Download The Full Petition Review Here
