dismissed EB-1A Case: Beauty

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV . 25, 2024 In Re: 34815255 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a beautician and eyelash artist, seeks classification as an individual 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 although the Petitioner 
satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, she did not show her sustained national 
or international acclaim and demonstrate she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants 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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the 
ten categories 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 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established her receipt of 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 Director determined the Petitioner met at least three of the claimed evidentiary criteria. 
However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not show she garnered sustained national or 
international acclaim and her achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor, 
demonstrating she is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues her satisfaction of additional criteria, and the evidence in the aggregate 
establishes her eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Because the Petitioner has already 
shown that she fulfills the minimum requirements of at least three criteria, we will evaluate the totality 
of the evidence based on the documentation presented to the Director in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As indicated above, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim, 2 she is one of the small percentage at the 
very top of the field of endeavor, and her achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze an individual's 
accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if her successes are sufficient to 
demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy ManualF.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(A)(l) (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and providing Black's 
Law Dictionary's definition of"sustain" is "to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time ... To persist in 
making (an effort) over a long period of time"). 
2 
the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20.3 In this matter, we 
determine the Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
According to the Petitioner's initial cover letter: 
[The Petitioner's] reputation is demonstrated by her specialized professional 
experience and, most notably, her proven success in creating remarkable novel 
approaches and application of modem methods in Eyelash Styling and Beauty 
Business. [The Petitioner's] combined extensive experience in her field and unique 
and creative talent certainly qualify her as a[n] Eyelash Styling Artist with 
extraordinary ability, one that will highly benefit the United States and the field of Arts, 
Eyelash Styling, and Beauty Business as a whole. 
As discussed further below, the Petitioner has received awards, been accredited by an association, 
experienced some press coverage, conducted review work, made contributions, authored material, 
founded and operated a beauty studio and school, and earned a salary for her work. However, in 
considering the totality of the evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her achievements are 
reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that she has risen to that 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The commentary 
for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides that the "intent 
of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for 
lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Here, the Petitioner has not 
established that she enjoys a career that meets this very high standard. 
The Petitioner provided evidence reflecting her receipt of 10 awards received from five competitions 
from 2023, within a year of the filing of the petition. Although the awards may show some recent 
recognition of her work from the field, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how they indicate sustained 
national or international acclaim or a career of acclaimed work in the field. While the Petitioner 
submitted letters confirming her receipt of the awards and background information about the 
competitions, the Petitioner did not establish that she received awards indicative of the upper echelon 
in the field. Here, the Petitioner did not show the significance of the awards and how they place her 
among that small percentage at the very top of the field. USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided evidence of her membership and "qualification as a Trainer, with 
the right to teach accreditation course" with the International Association of Judges Lash and Brown 
Industry (IAJLBI) in January 2023. However, the Petitioner did not show how her recent membership 
or accreditation resulted in sustained national or international acclaim or a career of acclaimed work. 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (instructing that USCTS officers should consider the petition in its 
entirety to determine eligibility according to the standard- sustained national or international acclaim and the achievements 
have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the person is one of that small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor). 
3 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her accreditation by IAJLBI reflects that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The record, for instance, does not 
contain evidence indicating that she received national or international recognition based on her 
accreditation by this association. In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that she has distinguished 
herself from others in the field based on her membership or accreditation by IAJLBI, gaining national 
or international attention or placing her among the upper echelon in her field. 
Regarding media coverage, the Petitioner offered nine articles published in 2023, which includes an 
article published in Forbes Woman (Kazakhstan). While the published material indicates some recent 
attention to her and her work, the Petitioner did not establish that such reporting is consistent with a 
level of success among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, 
has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, or has a career of acclaimed work. The 
Petitioner, for instance, did not show how the amount of her media coverage compares to others in her 
field who are among the very top. Again, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her nominal press 
coverage reflects a career of acclaimed work in the field or a very high standard to present more 
extensive documentation than that required. 
Likewise, relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the 
significance of her experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required 
extraordinary ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. The 
Petitioner judged three championships in 2023. However, the Petitioner did not establish that these 
three recent judging instances contributed to a finding that she has a career of acclaimed work in the 
field or indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner did not show, for example, how her judging experience compares to others at the very 
top of the field. In addition, the Petitioner did not establish, for instance, that she garnered wide 
attention from the field based on her evaluation work. Moreover, serving on a jury on three occasions 
does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary ability and sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of her field. Without evidence that sets the Petitioner apart 
from others in her field, such as evidence that she has a consistent history of reviewing or judging 
recognized, acclaimed experts in her field, the Petitioner has not shown that her narrow judging 
experience places her among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automatically place one at the top of the field. The record 
reflects the Petitioner presented evidence showing that she published six articles in 2023, and two 
training guides. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her recent publication record is 
consistent with having a career of acclaimed work, sustaining national or international acclaim, and 
being among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The Petitioner, for instance, did not 
show the significance of her authorship or how her publication record compares to others who are 
viewed to be at the very top of the field. 
In addition, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of written work can be an indicator 
to determine the impact and recognition that her publications have had on the field and whether such 
influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by 
the Petitioner may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that others have been 
4 
influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant 
to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Although she provided delivery agreements reflecting two parties 
purchasing her books, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her training guides received a level of 
interest in the field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim or a career of 
acclaimed work. Further, the Petitioner did not show the impact or influence of her other written 
materials have had on the field or otherwise show the significance or relevance of her publications. 
Moreover, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters generally praising her and her work. For 
instance, M-B- stated: 
[The Petitioner] stands as an illustrious figure in the ever-evolving landscape of the 
beauty industry, particularly renowned for her expertise in lash artistry. Her influence 
extends far and wide, not only in the CIS countries but also across borders, making her 
as a global luminary in the realm of lash extensions. As the founder of the prestigious 
[beauty studio and school] in Kazakhstan, she has left an indelible mark on the industry, 
defining trends and setting new standards. 
Also, T-K- stated: 
... [The Petitioner's] contribution to the beauty industry is invaluable. Thanks to her 
scientific and methodological manuals on eyelash extensions ... [the Petitioner] 
significantly influenced the development of this industry. We ourselves, at our school, 
use her books to teach novice masters, and note their uniqueness and practical value. 
Here, the letters do not further elaborate and provide detailed information explaining how "she has left 
an indelible mark on the industry" or "significantly influenced the development of this industry." 4 In 
addition, the letters do not contain sufficient information and explanation to show that she is viewed 
by the overall field, rather than by a solicited few, among the upper echelon or that she has garnered 
recognition on a national or international scale, consistent with being among the small percentage at 
the very top of the field of endeavor. Although the letters highlight the Petitioner's talents, they do 
not reflect a career of acclaimed work in the field, garnering the required sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Regarding her business, the Petitioner claimed that "the school has successfully assisted around 100 
graduates in Russia and Kazakhstan, fostering a community of skilled professionals." While the 
Petitioner provided photographs of her students completing her courses and pointed to the previously 
discussed media articles, in which only a few discuss her studio or school, the Petitioner did not 
establish that her business received widespread acclaim from the field, drew significant attention from 
the greater field, or the overall field views her business to be among the leading beauty studios or 
schools in the field. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not show that she attracted a level of attention 
from owning and operating her business that places her among that small percentage at the very top 
of the field or enjoys a career of acclaimed work. 
4 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered all of the letters contained in the record. 
5 
Finally, although the Petitioner documented her income as an entrepreneur of her beauty salon since 
2019, the Petitioner did not establish that she commanded earnings commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim. The Petitioner did not show that her wages are tantamount to an 
individual who is among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. She did not 
demonstrate, for example, how her earnings compare to others at the very top of the field or other 
renowned beauty salon owners, 5 or that she received notoriety or attention based on her profits or 
salary separating herself from others in the field or placing her in the upper echelon. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 6 Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing 
toward the top. Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 (concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 
l 9-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding 
denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of 
gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win 
this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
coach). In this case, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of her work is indicative of the 
required sustained national or international acclaim or it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work 
in the field" as contemplated by Congress. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59; see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of 
the Act. While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for 
the classification sought, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that she is among the small 
percentage at the top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The Petitioner provided comparative wages of lash makers rather than to her occupation as a beauty salon entrepreneur 
or owner. 
6 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (providing that while a person may be stronger in one particular 
evidentiary area than in others, the totality of the evidence must establish that the person in extraordinary). 
6