dismissed EB-1A RFE Issued
Fashion Designer
Fashion Designer · Venezuela · 2023-02-01
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
2 of 3 criteria metJudging the Work of Others (Met)
The Director determined the Petitioner met this criterion through participation as a judge in the field of design.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases (Met)
The Director determined the Petitioner met this criterion through the display of her work.
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards (Not Met)
The Mara de Oro award was not shown to have a level of media coverage or significance consistent with national or international recognition.
Published Material About the Individual (Not Met)
Articles in Panorama were brief and did not include substantial discussion of the Petitioner's work, nor was the publication proven to be major media.
Leading or Critical Role (Not Met)
The Petitioner did not establish that her brand or company holds a distinguished reputation in the fashion industry.
Why This Petition Was Denied
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.
Request for Evidence (RFE)
Unsuccessfully AddressedThe RFE asked for evidence of the award's recognition and the distinguished reputation of the Petitioner's company; the Petitioner responded with online articles and financial reports.
RFE Targets
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or AwardsPublished Material About the IndividualLeading or Critical Role
Evidence
Evidence Types
Awards
Media Coverage
Reference Letters Dependent
Judging Experience
Exhibitions
Leading Role
Evidence Submitted
- Participation as a judge of others' work in the field of design
- Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
- Mara de Oro Award (2018)
- Articles in Panorama and El Universal
- Articles in La Verdad
- 2017 cash flow statement and financial report
- Letters of endorsement from colleagues
- Instagram account printout
Similar Cases
Fashion Designer
Fashion
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-09-10
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.
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.
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.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
A dismissed EB-1A petition means USCIS found the evidence insufficient to meet the eligibility criteria. Common reasons include weak documentation, failure to meet the required number of criteria, or insufficient evidence of the claimed qualifications. Petitioners can refile with stronger evidence or explore alternative visa categories.
Browse More Cases
Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2023-02-01.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome dismissed
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 2 / 3
Evidence Types 6
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist