dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion And Costume Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 16, 2024 In Re: 28895668 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a designer of fashion and theater costumes for athletes and performers, seeks 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference classification makes immigrant 
visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that she met at least three of the regulatory criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), to be 
classified as an individual of extraordinary ability. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is 
now before us on a motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a statement explaining her personal circumstances, why she was 
unable to access and provide certain documentation, and reiterating why she believes that she qualifies 
as individual of extraordinary ability. She also asserts that our prior decision failed to consider new 
evidence submitted with her appeal, which was an error under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) and the Form 
I- 290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion's instructions. 1 She requests reopening of her prior appeal, 
1 With regards to her assertion that we erred by failing to consider the new evidence she submitted with her appeal, we 
note that the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen . Regardless, she has not explained why this was an error. Our prior 
decision declined to consider the new evidence because the Petitioner had been put on notice of the deficiencies in her 
stating "I agree with the shortcomings of my petition, ... but I ask you to consider my appeal ... de 
novo .... " She farther contends that it was error not to consider her evidence as comparable evidence 
within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) and claims, for the first time, that she meets the 
commercial success criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). She asks for compassion given her 
advanced age and because, as a Russian citizen, she is restricted from traveling to many countries. 
As an initial matter, although a petitioner may supplement previous eligibility assertions, it should not 
raise previously unclaimed eligibility criteria for the first time on motion. See Matter of Soriano, 
19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 
1988). Therefore, we will not consider the Petitioner's new claims regarding the commercial success 
criterion or comparable evidence. 2 
In addition to her statement, she rovides an email dated November 2020 from ~I-----~ 
General Secretary of the , and a portion of an 
article published in .______ __.marzinej As explained in our prior decision, the record does not 
contain evidence that membership in requires outstanding achievements of their members. 
While we acknowledge the submission of the email, we note that only a portion of the Petitioner's 
request is included. Regardless the response does not provide any information regarding the 
membership requirements of Dor establish that they require outstanding achievements of their 
members. As such, the Petitioner has not established her eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
With respect to the article published in I I although she has established that it is about 
her, it does not contain evidence to demonstrate that it is a professional or major trade publication, or 
other major media as required by the criterion found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In sum, although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, 
the Petitioner has not established eligibility. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
evidence and had been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency. Citing to precedent caselaw, we explained that 
because the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE) "spelled out the deficiencies in the evidence initially 
submitted and listed additional evidence which could be submitted to address those deficiencies, and the Petitioner 
responded with additional evidence," we would not consider the evidence submitted on appeal. The Petitioner's motion 
fails to explain how our analysis was made in error. 
2 As to the Petitioner's statements regarding comparable evidence, we agree that we may consider comparable evidence if 
we determine that the listed criteria do not readily apply to the Petitioner's occupation. See generally, 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.2, https://www.policymanual.com. However, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish not only that the criterion 
is not readily applicable to her occupation, but also that the submitted evidence is comparable to that criterion. Id. She has 
not done so here. 
2