dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-G-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 15, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an apparel retail company, seeks to classify the Beneflciary as an "alien of 
extraordinary ability" in business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classiflcation 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 Petitioner had 
not established that the Beneficiary satisfles at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. The Petitioner subsequently tiled a motion to reconsider, which 
the Director denied. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, asserting that the Beneflciary meets the necessary criteria 
and has shown her eligibility for the classiflcation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
l. LAW 
· Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Mauer ofT-G-. Inc. 
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement that is a major, 
internationally recognized award. Alternatively, he or she must provide 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"· USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).
1 
This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality'' as well as the principle that we examine "each piece or 
evidence Cor relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context ol" 
the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Marler of 
Chm,,athe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary is a technical designer. At the time of filing, she was working for the Petitioner in 
the position of Senior Director, Technical Design. The Petitioner did not indicate, and the record 
does not establish, that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Petitioner must therefore demonstrate the Beneftciary's 
eligibility under at least three of the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
ll1e Director found that the Beneficiary met the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and the high salary criterion under 8 C.f.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), but did not satisfy 
the regulatory requirements for the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the original 
contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), or the authorship criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings, and it does not support a 
finding that the Beneficiary meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
1 
This case discusses a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fllltilling the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a linal merits determination. See also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126. 13 1-32 (D. D.C. 20 13); Rljal v USC!S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W .D. Wash. 20 11). 
2 
.
Malter rifT-G-. Inc. 
A. Evidcnti(lry Criteria 
Documenrar ion (~(!he alien's receipt (~f lesser nationally or internal ionally recognized 
prizes or CllHirds.fhr excellence in Jhe_f;eld q.f endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submjtted a letter from which 
stated that the Beneficiary "gained second equal in the category of our prestigious 
for 1991."2 Aside from this letter and a photograph of an unidentified woman on a 
stage, the Petitioner submitted no other documentation to establlsh the Beneficiary's receipt of this 
award. 
Further, the Petitioner has not provided the criteria by which awardees of the 
were selected or the selection process itselC or the significance of being "second equal." Although 
the Petitioner submitted documentation regarding the and states 
that the were the precursor to these awards, it does not corroborate this 
statement or establish that the award the Beneficiary received equates to the later competition. 
Furthermore, the record does not show that the Beneficiary's award received national or 
international recognition. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this 
regulatory c ritcri on. 
Evidence ,~f' rhe alien ·s original scient{jic. scholarly. artrsttc. athletic. or business­
related contributions (~lm(u·or significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided letters of support discussing the 
Beneficiary's contributions to the field of technical design. The Director determined that the 
evidence did not demonstrate her eligibility for this criterion, noting that her internal work for 
Primark and the l)etitioner was insufficient to demonstrate that she made original contributions of 
major significance in the tield as a whole. 
On motion C~nd again on appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision did not properly 
consider the documentation it offered in support of the petition. The Petitioner contends that the 
Director's interpretation regarding the Beneficiary's internal contributions to her employers was too 
narrow, and asserts that in the tield of technical design, "the accomplishments of the individuals are 
attributed to the company as a whole." The Petitioner relies on numerous letters from top executives 
and colleagues in the field in support of this assertion, noting that the statements contained in those 
2 The Petitioner also submitted documentation of the Beneficiary's nomination for a 
Noting that a nomination was nor equivalent to the actua I receipt of such an award, the Director discounted this 
evidence prior lo adjudication. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner apparemly concurred with the Director's 
determination and stated that it would not further discuss this evidence. Therefore, we will not consider the nomination 
when evaluating this criterion. 
3 
.
Mauer ofT-G-. Inc. 
letters demonstrates that the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the 
tield of technical design. · 
On motion and appeal, the Petitioner relies primarily on a letter from Ph.D., 
Professor and Program Director of with which 
provides an "independent eva! uation" of the Beneficiary's credentials. who states that 
she has never met the Beneficiary, provides a general overview of the duties of a technical director 
within a company. She concludes, however, "that such important and well-known fashion brands 
would entrust [the Beneliciary] in this integral and critical role in [sic] is true testimony to both her 
reputatioi1 and considerable skill." Although she states that the Beneficiary's internal efforts while 
\.Vorking for the Petitioner, and other companies such as and were 
instrumental in improving supply chain performance, brand consistency, apparel sizing strategies, 
and product quality, there is no indication that those intema1 efforts were innovative or origina1 to 
the extent that they had a major influence on the field as whole. We address the Beneficiary's skill 
and the signilicance of her work for her employers below, under the more relevant criterion found at 
8 C.F'.R. § 204.5(h)(J)(viii): here, we focus on her original contributions and how they have 
impacted her tield. 
continues by reviewing the Beneficiary's work history, generally noting that she "has 
made original contributions to companies that produce a broad range of retail products,'' and that 
"throughout her career, [the Beneticiary] has truly distinguished herself, making several original 
contributions to the· field~ enjoying substantial professional and commercial success, and realizing 
sustained international acclaim." however, does not specifically identify any of these 
original contributions, and does not explain how they have .impacted the field of technical design as 
a whole. 
Moreover, numerous letters submitted under this criterion, including evaluation, discuss 
the Beneficiary's introduction of a system called ' to her employers' operations. According 
to Sourcing and Quality Director for she "is current1y establishing & 
implementing a system called which features the use of 3D avatars as a part of the brands 
best practice & communication with vendors & other cross functional partners." 
President and CEO of states that the Beneficiary is "pioneering and leading the 
implementation and strategy lor our latest technological platform, which wiH enable the 
team to design in 3-D, increasing production speed and the precision of our product." 
states that the Bencliciary has "identified and implemented the use of the cutting-edge technology, 
" noting that she is "spearheading" its critical implementation process for the Petitioner. 
According to its website, is "the leading provider of integrated 20 CAD and 3D digital 
product solutions for the textile industry" and not an original technological innovation of the 
Bcnenciary. 3 The Bene!iciary's implementation of a new technology tor her current employer, 
3 
See https:// (last visited Mar. 7, 20 18). 
4 
.
Matter ofT-G-. Inc. 
which is read1ly-avallable and marketed to the fashion and apparel industry,
4 
does not constitute an 
original contribution of major significance as contemplated by this criterion. 
Therefore, although the record contains numerous testimonials from her current and past employers, 
praising her innovative work in expanding their product lines, the record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary made original contributions of major significance to the tield of technical design as a 
whole. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Bendiciary meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence (~[Ow olien ·s authorship (d'scholarly articles in the field. in pro_fessional or major 
trade publications or other mc!jor media. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner provided copies of numerous quality assurance articles and technical design manuals 
the Bencticiary produced for internal company use while employed by 
The Director found that these documents did not satisfy the requirements of this criterion 
because they were not "articles" published in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media and did not idcntil)' the Beneficiary as the author, and we concur with that determination. 
The Petitioner does not address this criterion or provide any additional evidence to rebut the 
Director's Jinding on this issue on motion or appeal. Consequently, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence 1hm rhe alien has pe,:fhrmed in a leading or critical role for organizarions or 
eslahlishmenls that have a dislinguished reputathm. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that the Beneficiary served as the Head of Quality Assurance and 
Technical Services for from 2009 to 2016, and also submitted documentation demonstrating 
that Primark is a multinational clothing retailer with a distinguished reputation. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary met this criterion, and we agree with 
that determination. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded (I high salmy or other signijicanlly high remuneration 
for services, in 1·elalion lo others in !he field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner provided evidence of her income from in the form of pay stubs from 2015 
and 20l6. She nlso provided a copy of her Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 2016, 
demonstrating her annual income with the Petitioner, as well as various pay stubs from the Petitioner 
\Nhich corroborate her stated annual salary set forth in her offer of employment. In addition, the 
Petitioner presented documentation from career and employment websites reflecting that she earned 
4 
See https:/ , (last visited .\1ar. 7, 20 18). Accordmg to its website, "Over 7,000 companies 
arc using solutions to save time and costs at every step in the textile industry workflow- while keeping up with 
today's fast changing market. See Imps:/. (lasted visited Mar. 7, 20 18). 
5 
Matter ofT-G-, Inc 
a high salary compared to other professionals in her field. Accordingly, the Director detem1ined that 
the Petitioner satisfted this criterion, and we concur with the Director's determination. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the evidence provided satisfies only two of the regulatory criteria. Had the 
Petitioner included the requisite material under at least three evidentiary categories, our next step 
would be a final merits determination that considers all of the submissions in the context of whether 
the Beneficiary has achieved: (I) a "level of expertise indicating that [she] is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) ;;that the [beneficiary] 
has sustained national or international acclaim" and that her "achievements have been recognized in 
the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2} (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.Jd at 1119-20. As the 
Petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that the Beneficiary has not satistied the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting initial evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide 
the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate 
does not support a finding that the Beneficiary has achieved the level of expertise required tor this 
classification. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note the record of proceedings reflects that the· Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification 
reserved tor nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USClS has approved at least one 0-l 
nonimmigrant visa petition flied on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude 
USC IS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard­
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See. e.g, Q Dar a Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); !KEA US v. US Dept. of'.Justh:e, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. I 999); Fedin Brothers 
Co. Ltd, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Furthermore, our authority over a USC IS service 
center, the oftice responsible for adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orcheslra v. INS, No. 
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), af(d, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cen denied, 122 S.Ct. 
51 (2001). 
6 
Malter ofT-G-. Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary 
qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(I)(A) of the 
Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. c 
Cite as J\4atter ofT-G-. Inc., ID# 993215 (AAO Mar. 15, 2018) 
7