Date of Decision: June 26, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Model
Field: Fashion and Media
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner provided evidence of participation as a judge in the modeling field.
- Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions: The petitioner demonstrated that their work was showcased in fashion-related exhibitions and publications.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Articles submitted, including one from The Himalayan Times, were determined insufficient as they did not provide substantive recognition of the petitioner’s work.
- Publications such as World of Women lacked evidence to qualify as major trade or professional media.
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- Evidence of salary was not corroborated by tax records or contemporaneous data comparing the petitioner’s earnings to industry standards.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner’s evidence included participation as a judge in fashion competitions and evaluations, satisfying this criterion.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions:
Evidence demonstrated the petitioner’s modeling work was showcased in exhibitions and featured in publications, meeting the criterion for artistic displays.
Published Material About the Petitioner:
Articles provided were either insufficiently focused on the petitioner’s work or lacked verification as professional trade publications.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner’s compensation was documented, but supporting evidence such as tax filings or comparative industry data was either absent or insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary remuneration.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Activities: Evidence of judging roles in fashion-related competitions.
Artistic Displays: Documentation of participation in modeling exhibitions.
Published Articles: Insufficient documentation to qualify as major trade or professional publications.
Salary Evidence: Compensation data not adequately supported by independent verification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met two evidentiary criteria but failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of at least three under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Additionally, the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of their field.
