dismissed EB-1A Case: Makeup Artistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8895180 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 25, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a makeup artist, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized award or met the 
requirements of at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director 
then affirmed this decision on motion, finding that the Petitioner met only two of the evidentiary 
criteria. On appeal, we agreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner had served as a judge of 
the work of others in her field per the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). However, we disagreed 
that the Petitioner had established that published material about her and her work had appeared in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, and withdrew the Director's positive 
finding regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). We also found that the evidence 
established that the Petitioner met a second criterion by submitting evidence of the display of her work 
at artistic exhibitions per 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner now submits a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, together with new evidence, 
and asserts that she meets five criteria in addition to the two we found that she met in our previous 
decision. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss both motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and 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 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Here, the Petitioner asserts that we misapplied the 
preponderance of the evidence standard, and that the previously submitted evidence established that 
she meets five additional criteria. We will discuss her assertions regarding each below.1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
,............ ..................... ..........,L..L.l,L! ........ .......,,.,........,,<.UJ....JU!..><."""""'-JL>J.J..l,<.JI.JU.~ed that the Petitioner had received three certificates from the 
'-------..----------.....-.==::::z!L' .:..:.in:..::::c.:..::lu:..:::::d.:..:.in:...:1...,a "Prestige Diploma" at thel !Europe Cup in 
2015, a "Diplome D'Honneur" at in 2010, and a "Gold Medal" in "Ladies Juniors 
I I' at~----~ in 2008. But we noted that the I Competition 
Guidebook for 2018 indicates that all competitors are awarded the "Prestige Diploma," and that there 
was no information regarding the "Diplome D'Honneur" certificate in this evidence or elsewhere in 
the record. Thus the record did not establish that they were given to the Petitioner for "excellence in 
the field of endeavor," as a certificate for participation in a competition does not demonstrate that she 
excelled or stood out in any way amongst the competitors. Similarly, we noted that the Petitioner's 
"Gold Medal" certificate was issued in the junior ladies division, and that the evidence did not show 
that as such it was awarded for excellence amongst all of the competitors at I 12008. The 
Petitioner does not address the requirement for "excellence in the field of endeavor" in her motion 
brief, and thus has not established that our decision was incorrect based on the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 
However, even if the Petitioner had shown that thel !certificates were awarded for excellence as 
a makeup artist, we also found in our previous decision that the evidence did not establish that they 
are nationally or internationally recognized awards. The Petitioner does address this element of the 
criterion on 
1
otionl stating that our finding that the evidence, including reference letters and published 
media about s competitions, relates to~·s competitions rather than the bestowed awards, 
"is simply incorrect." She references evidence frame=] itself, including a letter from the president 
of the organization, as well as articles published on independent websites and other media. 
A review of the three articles which the Petitioner focuses on reveals that although there is discussion 
of the granting of awards at I I competitions, all focus on the hair styling aspect of the 
competition and awards, and not the junior I I competition for which the Petitioner was 
awarded. The article posted on the website of Modern Salon onl I 2014 is a brief overview of 
1 The Petitioner does not contest the findings in our previous decision regarding the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will therefore consider this issue to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 l&N Dec. 
762, 767 n. 2 (BIA 2009). 
2 
the I I competition that year in I I Germany, and notes that it "brings together 
thousands of hairdressers from across the globe to compete for the coveted trophy (and the publicity, 
exposure and bragging rights that come along with it!)." It goes on to note thatl I is one 
of the 38 categories in which competitors participate, but does not provide further discussion of it, 
instead focusing on an interview of a hairdresser on the team representing the United States. Another 
article, posted on the website rlobalne,s.ca, lis an interview of two stylists from I I Canada 
preparing tori . 2017 in The article notes that it is "the world's biggest hair 
competition," and one of the stylists explains that it "is like the I L" By far the longest 
article was posted on the website racked.com, and goes into great detail regarding the history and 
current status of hair styling competitions, as well as the 2016 I !competition inl I South 
Korea. But it doesn't mention either th~ I competition or the junior competitions at all. 
Upon review, although we agree that these materials describe both the I I competitions and the 
hair styling awards granted as being recognized internationally, none of them similarly describe the 
junior division award inl I received by the Petitioner. 
In addition, the letter from I I President of I I includes much o~ the same 
information presented in the articles analyzed above regarding the prestige of the I 
competition, and confirms the Petitioner's receipt of the three certificates in the record. However, this 
evidence does not establish that the awards received by the Petitioner are recognized outside of the 
issuing organization on a national or international basis. 
For all of the reasons stated above, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision 
regarding this criterion was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner asserts in her brief that the evidence regarding her membership in the Union of 
Hairdressers and Cosmetologists of Russia (UHCR) establishes that she meets this criterion, and that 
in our previous decision we "enforce[ed] a heavier standard beyond what is required" by regulation or 
in agency guidance. Although she indicates a reference to the organization's bylaws, the Petitioner 
quotes a different set of membership criteria from its website, which states that a candidate for 
membership shall have: 
I A relevant professional education; 
I 3+ years of experience of occupational work; 
I Awards, diplomas, medals for participation in various professional events. 
We first note that the first two requirements are of the type which is noted in the guidance in the 
Adjudicator's Field Manual, referenced by the Petitioner, as not leading to a conclusion that an 
3 
assocIatIon requires outstanding achievements of its members.2 The third requirement partially 
suggests that "awards" or "medals" are also required, but also includes "diplomas," which are typically 
earned upon completion of education or training. In addition, "participation in various professional 
events" does not indicate that the preceding types of recognition must have been received for achieving 
victory in a competition or other venue in which the candidate would have demonstrated that they 
stand out from others in the field of cosmetology. Rather, a "professional event" could also include a 
seminar or conference in which the candidate participated and received a diploma documenting that 
participation. Therefore, this evidence does not establish that UHCR requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. 
As for the UHCR bylaws, a review of the translations provided shows that they are not complete 
translations of the Russian language document. We first note that despite the Russian document 
including 22 articles, only a portion of Article 7, regarding admission of members, was provided in 
the English translation. More importantly, the translated portion of Article 7 is also not complete, as 
can be clearly seen by comparing the length of the sentences in the translation against the original 
document, and by the fact that in the translation, the second bullet under Article 7.2 is an incomplete 
sentence which abruptly ends with the word "the." Any document in a foreign language must be 
accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must 
certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. Because the Petitioner did not 
submit a complete English language translation of the document, we cannot meaningfully determine 
whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claims. 
The Petitioner also asserts that a reference letter regarding UHCR membership requirements did not 
contain inconsistencies with the website information or bylaws, but was submitted to provide further 
detail. Upon review, we agree that the use of the term "major" in the letter froml I I I to describe contests is not necessarily inconsistent with the terminology used in the bylaws. 
However, we note that review of this letter reveals inconsistencies in its translation which lead to 
questions regarding which organization! I describes in her lettrr Notably, while the 
heading and first paragraph of the English translation describe her position as lot UHCR, the 
text in the Russian language document is the same as that in the seal at the bottom of the letter, which 
is translated as "Union of Enterprises and Specialists in Beauty Industry of the North-West." It is 
therefore unclear whether the membership requirements described, and the brief biographies of 
members of the admissions committee, are those of UHCR or this other association, for which the 
Petitioner has not established her membership. The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancy in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 {BIA 1988). Absent such a resolution, the evidence does not support the Petitioner's 
claim that her membership in UHCR qualifies under this criterion. 
For all of the reasons stated above, the Petitioner has not established that the finding in our previous 
decision regarding this criterion was incorrect based upon an incorrect application of law or policy, or 
was incorrect based upon the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14. (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/po I icymanual/HTM L/Po I icyManual. htm I. 
4 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In our previous decision, we disagreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner met this criterion, 
and vacated that finding. On motion, the Petitioner focuses on two of the articles that we found to not 
be about her and her work, published on the websites cosmo.ru and graziamagazine.ru, noting that 
both contain identical, and very brief, summaries of her career: "international makeup artist, coach 
and author of makeup images fa,___ ____ ~ ___ __, I I and I , I I 1-" She asserts that these words are sufficient to establish that the pub I ished materials 
are about her, noting that "Nowhere does the regulatory language state what percentage of the article's 
written content should discuss the Petitioner and her work." However, these very brief summaries of 
the Petitioner's career, contained within articles of several pages in which she provides her opinion 
about beauty products and social media personalities, are not sufficient to demonstrate that the articles 
are about her. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7, (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 
2008) (finding that articles "focusing on the character or the show, rather than the performer himself," 
are not about the performer); see also Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) 
(finding that brief mentions of an athlete within articles about a team are not about the athlete). We 
further note that although the Petitioner asserts that both of these articles indicate that they are authored 
by "online staff," this language does not appear in the translation of either article. 
The Petitioner further contends on motion that the article on the website of Grazia Magazine "arguably 
constitutes being a work product itself of [the Petitioner]," and is thus about her and her work. 
However, we note that a separate criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) is intended for the 
consideration of published material authored by a petitioner. This criterion considers published 
materials written by others about a petitioner and his or her work. 
For all of the reasons stated above, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision 
regarding this criterion was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner acknowledges in her brief that she "decided not to pursue" her claim to meeting this 
criterion after receiving the Director's request for evidence, but now asks that this issue be 
reconsidered on motion. We note that she did not raise this claim in either her motion to reopen before 
the Director or on appeal. In general, we will not address issues that were not raised with specificity 
on appeal. We will therefore consider this issue to have been abandoned. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S­
, 24 l&N Dec. 762, 767 n. 2 (BIA 2009). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
In our previous decision, we acknowledged the evidence of the Petitioner's earnings in the form of 
contracts for her services. Those contracts included one for 155,000 rubles in 2012, and three others 
5 
for which she was paid 200,000 rubles for projects in 2013, 2014 and 2015. We also acknowledged a 
letter from I I general director ofl I who stated that the average monthly salary 
of makeup artists in Russia is 30,000 rubles, as well as evidence from the website trud.com showing 
that the average monthly salary is 40,000 rubles. However, we found that this data was not sufficient 
to establish that the Petitioner's salary is high relative to other makeup artists, since it did not provide 
a proper basis for comparison to the evidence of the Petitioner's earnings on specific projects. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that since the submitted contracts show the amount she was paid for 
a single day of work, the fact that the amounts she earned were several times higher than the monthly 
average establishes that her salary is high compared to other makeup artists. However, we note that 
the evidence on which the Petitioner relies to establish the amount of her earnings consists of four 
contracts in four different years, and that those earnings considered on a monthly basis are actually 
lower than the monthly average stated on trud.com. In addition, as noted in the Director's initial 
decision, letters in the record regarding her additional earnings are not supported by documentary 
evidence, such as contracts or tax or payroll documents, and therefore are not sufficient to show her 
salary beyond that reflected in these four contracts. Therefore, the evidence does not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's average monthly salary in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 was high relative to others in 
her field. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
As previously noted, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. On motion, 
the Petitioner presents new evidence regarding two criteria: those relating to her receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, and to published material about her in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. We will therefore consider only those 
criteria in our motion to reopen analysis. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
As additional evidence concerning the recognition of the awards received by the Petitioner, she 
submits pages from~·s website, as well as additional media articles about I I The 
three website pages submitted include information about the number of worldwide members of the 
organization and its existence since 1946, and note that the organization "offers a Global platform to 
all competitors of the beauty sector of Hair, Aesthetics and Nail to become World champions in their 
own field ... " In addition, they refer to the I I Global Awards," which include Lifetime 
Achievement, Hall of Fame, and Ambassador Award among others. While this information confirms 
thatl lholds international competitions for hairstylists, makeup artists and aestheticians, it does 
not demonstrate that the awards earned by the Petitioner are nationally or internationally recognized. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted two additional media articles, one published on the website 
www.probeauty.org and the other on www.esteticamagazine.com. Both are brief notices about the 
I I competitions in 2016 and 2019, respectively. As with many of the previously 
submitted articles, the article on the www.probeauty.org website refers to the competition as being 
among hairdressers, and does not mention the makeup rmperions in which the Petitioner 
participated. The second article repeats the text from the website noted above, and also 
6 
promotes the event as the j las in other materials. Neither article adds new evidence 
which establishes that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence regarding the circulation or viewership of media 
which published articles she asserts are about her and her work. She submits pages from the website 
cetre.ru which indicate that it "is a unique platform about the most interesting facts about the life of 
celebrities and the latest trends," and that the website has 220,000 unique users monthly and 1.1 
million page views monthly. However, the record does not include evidence which establishes that 
those viewership or visitor figures are comparable to those for major media. 
Also submitted on motion is a single webpage, www.totallook-magazine.com, which repeats a 
paragraph stating that the magazine is distributed in six countries. We note that circulation figures are 
not provided, and that the name of this magazine appears to be different than the magazine which the 
Petitioner asserts published an article about her, Total Look Children. This evidence is therefore 
insufficient to establish that Total Look Children is a major medium. Accordingly, the evidence 
submitted on motion does not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. In addition, our review of new evidence submitted with the Petitioner's 
motion to reopen does not establish that she meets the individual criteria claimed or that is otherwise 
eligible for the requested benefit. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
7