dismissed EB-1A Case: Architectural Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 13065567 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an architectural 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)(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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States . 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) . The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned master's de rees in architecture at the University! bnd the University of 
-----.---------~ After workin in the United States for I !Architecture 
from 2009 to 2010, and at rom 2010 to 2013, the Petitioner returned to China 
~a_s_a_c-o-~founder and chief architect a inl I Projects discussed in the record include 
I I(~ [arts exhibition spacdh inl l China: I I 
( a mixed-use development incorporating a shopping mall, apartments, and an office building); and 
I I 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims to have met three criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; and 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the two evidentiary criteria numbered (i) and (iii), and 
we will not disturb that conclusion. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the remaining 
claimed criterion. As explained below, after reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude 
that it does not show that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. For 
2 
I 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. See 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWU 
v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
As noted above, the Director concluded that the Petitioner has won awards and earned media coverage 
for her work. The Petitioner asserts that the awards and coverage are, themselves, evidence of the 
significance of her contributions. The regulatory framework calls for converging lines of evidence, 
consistent with the "extensive documentation" required by section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. For this 
reason, while a given piece of evidence may be relevant to multiple criteria, satisfaction of any one 
criterion does not invariably demonstrate satisfaction of others. 
The Petitioner submits letters from several individuals in the field of architecture, most of whom have 
employed, supervised, or trained the Petitioner. Some of these individuals offer general praise for the 
Petitioner's abilities, and their opinions about particular projects, but they do not specify how her 
contributions have had major siggificance in the field. For example, a professor who taught the Petitioner 
during her graduate studies at I I states that the Petitioner "proved her outstanding ability in 
transforming radical concepts into solid design schemes," and calls I I "a true spectacle," 
describing the structure without explaining its larger significance in the field of architectural design. 
Likewise, a design director who previously worked with the Petitioner ;:ift I states that the Petitioner's 
"design knowledge and ability was [sic] a critical part of the success of multiple important projects ... 
[that] are both highly complex and exceptionally innovative in their design." He identifies the projects 
and states that the Petitioner "more than was able to rise to the task," but does not explain the significance 
of the Petitioner's work on those projects. In a follow-up letter, he cites one claimed example of the 
Petitioner's influence, stating that "thd I Opera House ... , announced in 2019, ... has 
almost the same approach as thd I project, and is also a side proof ofl Is innovative 
impact." He cites no source for the information, and the Petitioner identifies no corroborating 
documentation in the record. Therefore, this assertion carries negligible weight as a purported example 
of the Petitioner's influence on the field. 
The Petitioner also submits letters from editors of various tublications. For example, the founder and 
editor in chief of ArchDaily calls the I center a "great example of [ the Petitioner's] 
exceptional work." He asserts that "publication[] of her representative works ... can certainly bring 
invaluable inspiration to other designers," but this attests to potential impact and influence without 
showing that the Petitioner's work is of major significance in the field of architectural design. 
The assistant deoutv editor of Domus discusses some of the Petitioner's desim1s and states: I 
r This general statement does not suffice to explain how the Petitioner's 
contributions are of major significance. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends: "There are elements of her work which serve as building blocks to 
the future success of design, and while this premise may seem 'insignificant,' on the contrary, 
foundational work is the start of many groundbreaking contributions." The burden, however, is on the 
Petitioner to show that her work is recognized as "foundational," and is being used "as building blocks to 
the future success of design." Speculation that future architects and designers could rely on her work has 
no weight in this proceeding. 
The Petitioner asserts that the record shows that she "has been instrumental in the creation of dozens of 
architectural designs ... which have been widely implemented and resulted in economic benefits." The 
burden is on the Petitioner to document those claimed benefits, and to show that they result from her 
design work, rather than the underlying project. 
For example, a shopping mall will have a commercial impact owing to the retail sales that occur there as 
a matter of course; the Petitioner cannot simply claim credit for that impact because she was involved in 
the architectural design of the facility where those sales take place. A particularly innovative design may 
increase traffic to that shopping mall, but it is up to the Petitioner to show how this is the case. 
The Petitioner does not meet this burden on appeal. For instance, she provides information about "an 
urban complex that integrates [a] large shopping mall, office building, apartment and residence." The 
Petitioner then provides information about the complex, and claims that it "has become an industry 
benchmark in China's shopping malls," but does not explain how this is due to the Petitioner's 
architectural design work rather than other attributes of the complex, such as the intrinsic demand for 
shopping, office, and residential facilities. The Petitioner also does not show that it was she who 
conceived the idea of consolidating these different facilities into a single complex, or that her work has 
influenced others in her field. 
The Petitioner asserts that the various projects are "examples [ of] utilization/application of her work," but 
the construction of buildings from plans she was hired to prepare does not show influence beyond that 
project. Not every completed structure is inherently an original contribution of major significance in the 
field. The Petitioner does not claim that the designs she has created for the various projects have had a 
significant effect on the field of architectural design. Rather, she asserts that her "architectural designs 
have resulted in buildings, resorts, malls, bridges, etc., which are currently being utilized by millions of 
consumers," but she offers no explanation as to why the success of a given commercial project establishes 
major significance in the.field of architectural design. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that her original contributions are of major significance in the 
field of architectural design. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
4 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. Here, the Petitioner 
has demonstrated her involvement in some high-profile architectural projects, but she has not shown 
that the significance of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim 
or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Submitted letters refer to the Petitioner's work as influential but do not 
document that influence. Much of the media coverage documented in the record appears to be 
promotional in nature. The Petitioner has established that she is a creative and successful architectural 
designer, but has not demonstrated a level of acclaim that would place her at the top of the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5