dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF O-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
·· Administrative Appeals Office 
DA TE: FEB. 15, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WOR~ER 
The Petitioner, an artisan, photographer and fashion designer, 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 )( 1 )(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 achieveIJ1ents have _been recognized in their field thro~gh extensi~e documentation. · 
The Director of the Nebraska. Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
· establish, as required, that the Petitioner has a one-time achievement 1(a major, internationally 
· recognized award) or met at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. The Petitioner appealed 
the matter to_ us, and we dismissed her appeal. 
· On ·motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence _and asserts that she meets two criteria in 
addition to the two criteria we found that she meets in-our previous decision .. 
Upon review, we will deny the mption. 
I. LAW. 
A motion to reopen is based bn documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion 
to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In her decision, the Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the requisite three ·criteria, 
regarding display of her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. On appeal, we determined that 
she also met the criterion relating to playing a leading or critical role for an organization with a 
distinguished· reputation, but that ·she fell short of establishing several others. The Petitioner now 
submits a motion to reopen with new eviaence, and claims to meet the criteria for published material 
·about her in.professional or major trade publications or otlier major media, and for a high salary or 
other significaQtly 1.high remuneration. As the evidence meets the requirements for a- motion to 
reopen, we will analyze it under the appropriate criteria below. 
.
Matter of O-S-
A. Published Material About the Alien in Professional or Major Trade Publications or Other Major 
Media 
With her motion, the Petitioner submits a copy of an article which appeared in the 2018 
edition of Vogue UA, the Ukrainian edition of the popular fashion magazine. The one-page article is 
accompanied by pictures of the Petitioner and her work ; and discusses a display of her w_ork in 
in December 2017. However , we note that both the display of her work and publication of 
the article occurred well after this petition was filed on August 7, 2017. Eligibility for an 
immigration benefit must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l ), (12); Matt er 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved 'at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 l&N Dec. 
169,175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision, citing Matter <?fBardouille. 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), 
further provides that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing 
of a petition." Id. at 176. Accordingly , this evidence does not establish the Petitioner's qualification 
under this criterion. 
The Petitioner also resubmits two articles which were published in the magazine domus design in 
2006 and 2007. Both articles feature descriptions and photographs of the interior of 
apartments, including pictures that the Petitioner asserts are her creations. She is credited as one of 
two designers in the 2006 article, and for "photographs in the interior" in the 2007 
article. The text of the 2006 article repeats the mention of the Petitioner as a designer of the 
apartment, but the text of the . 2007 article is not translated from Ukrainian to English . The 
2006 article is not about the Petitioner , but is a description of the apartment, and the subject 
of the 2007 article cannot be discerned without translations. In addition , the Petitioner submits 
new evidence relating to the publication in support of her assertion that it should be considered as 
major media. A "Website Analysis Overview Report " on the domusweb.it website provides figures 
on the number of visitors, but it is not apparent that these figures relate to the Ukrainian edition of 
the magazine in which the submitted articles appear. Also submitted Qn motion is an advertising 
guide to the magazine which indicates that it has a circulation of I 0,000 copies distributed 
throughout Ukraine. However, these claims are not supported by evidence from independent 
sources,· nor has comparative evidence been submitted to establish that the circulation of the 
Ukrainian edition of domus design sufficiently establishes that it is major media .. 
In our previous decision, we determined that while some television broadcasts were about the 
Petitioner and her work as an ·artist, she had not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
these broadcasts appeared in major media. On motion, the Petitioner resubmits evidence of a short 
program covering her exhibition in in 2017, as well as new evidence regarding UA TV, 
the government-run satellite television company which aired the program .. A "Website Analysis 
Overview Report" about the company's website indicates that it is ranked number 4,562 in Ukraine, 
. with 284,447 monthly visits, nearly all from visitors within Ukraine. Without further information 
regarding the size of UA TV's viewership or other evidence . of its status as a major media outlet , this 
evidence is insufficient to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
2 
Matter of 0-S-
B. Evidence That the Alien has Commanded a High Salary or Other Significantly High 
Remuneration for Services, in Relation to Others in the Field 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a copy of a 201 7 IRS Form 1099 from a client for whom she 
~ompleted an interior design project, as well as a copy of the design proposal. The Form · 1099 
indicates that she received $9,800 from this client. However, the Petitioner has not .submitted 
evidence of how her remuneration compares to that of other artists in her field·. Therefore, she has 
not established that it is significantly high. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We have reviewed the new evidence submitted by the Petitioner on motion, and find that it does not 
meet the claimed evidentiary criteria or establish her eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied: 
Cite as Matter of 0-S-, ID# 2000787 (AAO Feb. 15, 2019) 
3