remanded EB-1A
Fashion Designer
Fashion Design Field · 2024-09-10
This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.
Framework Evaluation
3 of 3 criteria metPublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Met)
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion by providing sufficient evidence that material had been published about her in major trade publications or major media.
Evidence of having performed a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation (Met)
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion by providing sufficient evidence of her leading or critical role with a distinguished organization (co-founder of D-).
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases (Met)
The AAO concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion, finding that the display of D-'s fashion designs at the C- and T- exhibitions constituted the display of the Petitioner's own artistic work, as she assisted in creation and presented digital dresses.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner did not demonstrate a major, internationally recognized award or meet three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the Director erred, concluding the Petitioner met three criteria: 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) (published material), 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) (leading/critical role), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) (artistic display). Specifically, the Petitioner's work with D- and its digital fashion designs displayed at C- and T- exhibitions were deemed her own artistic work. The matter was remanded for a final merits review to determine if the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is at the very top of her field.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Media Coverage
Reference Letters Dependent
Exhibitions
Leading Role
Original Contributions
Evidence Submitted
- material published about her in major trade publications or major media
- evidence of her leading or critical role with a distinguished organization (co-founder of D-)
- evidence of the display of her work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases (C- and T- exhibitions)
- testimonial letters
- webpages about exhibitions
- documentary evidence about D-'s business
- patented and trademarked software for photo editing (Software-as-a-service (SaaS) featuring software for use in photo editing)
- media articles discussing the creation of D-'s fashionable attire for II avatars for purchase by II end users
- sale of D-'s products on social media platforms
Similar Cases
Fashion Designer
Fashion · Venezuela
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
Florida 2023-02-01
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner only met two criteria (judging and exhibitions) instead of the required three. The Mara de Oro award lacked evidence of national recognition, and the submitted articles in Panorama were deemed brief blurbs rather than substantial published material about the Petitioner. Additionally, the Petitioner did not prove her company had a distinguished reputation in the fashion industry.
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Fashion · Colombia
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
Florida 2023-04-13
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner only met two of the ten criteria (published material and judging), failing to meet the minimum of three. Specifically, her participation in fashion markets was not considered 'artistic exhibitions,' and she did not qualify under 'commercial success in performing arts' as she is not a performing artist. Additionally, media coverage was limited to the year prior to filing, failing to show sustained acclaim.
Fashion Designer
Fashion
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-11-12
The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not submit new facts supported by documentary evidence to warrant reopening the previous motion, which itself was dismissed as untimely. Even if the previous motion had been timely, it would have been dismissed on the merits because the Petitioner submitted a magazine article dated March-April 2024, which post-dates the petition's filing date of August 31, 2020, and thus could not demonstrate eligibility at the time of filing. The Petitioner also failed to identify any incorrect application of law or policy in the prior appeal decision.
Designer
Art and Design · Thailand
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-07-11
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner met only two of the ten required criteria (awards and exhibitions), failing to reach the minimum of three. The evidence for published material (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) was deficient due to a lack of circulation data and non-compliant foreign language translations. Consequently, the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the EB-1A classification.
Frequently Asked Questions
A remanded EB-1A petition means the case was sent back to the field office for further review. This happens when procedural errors are found or additional evidence should be considered. It is neither an approval nor a denial.
Browse More Cases
Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-09-10.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 5
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 919
Success Rate 53.0%
Sustained 487
Dismissed 315
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist