dismissed EB-1A Case: Costume Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17440615 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 25, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a designer of sport and theatrical costumes, 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 )(1 )(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 Petitioner met only 
one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which she must meet at least three . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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 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 
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner 
to submit comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates self-employment in athletic, theatrical and other fashion design from 1997 
until at the date of filing the instant petition in June 2018. 1 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 Director found that the Petitioner met the criterion relating to display of her work in the field at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The record confirms that she has been 
a costume designer for many years and has displayed her work in national and international figure 
skating and synchronized swimming competitions, theatrical performances, and other artistic 
performances. She therefore meets this criterion. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that this 
criterion was satisfied. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets six additional criteria, including through the 
submission of comparable evidence, discussed below. After reviewing all of the evidence in the 
record, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner argues for the first time on appeal that she meets this criterion based on her membership 
in the Union ofDesigne~ Synchronized Swimming Federation] I Union of Artists, 
Union of Designers, andL_j Union of Designers. In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner 
must show that she is a member of an association, and that membership in the association is based on 
1 See the Petitioner's Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, which indicates self­
employment as a freelance costume designer between 2016 and 2018 and, previously, with her eponymous design bureau 
between 1997 and 2016. 
2 
being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in 
the field for which classification is sought. 2 
Regarding the Petitioner's membership in the Union of Designers! I the Petitioner submitted 
a membership card indicating "Year of becoming a member 1989." Ibis evidence wr accompanied 
by a letter from the former chairman of the union'~ I boardJ who describes 
the union as a professional creative association oft I designers that was in operation between 1987 
until 1991. He asserts that the association had "very strict selection criteria" whereby "designers were 
accepted based on the results of a creative competition," and that "the selection committee consisted 
of masters o~ !design, world famous artists, like I ! He asserts as follows: 
[The Petitioner] was admitted to the Union at the end of 1989, her membership card 
number is 3014, which suggests that in the two and a half years of the Union's 
existence, only a few were selected : there were hundreds of thousands of professional 
designers in thd I and everyone wanted to join the Union. Thus, membership in 
the Union was a confirmation of the high level, exceptional abilities and existing 
achievements. 
""'H=er~e:.21.l-...--__ __,ls statements are not sufficiently detailed to establish that the Union of Designers 
l ____ lrequired prospective members to demonstrate "outstanding achievements" as a condition of 
admission or that recognized national or international experts judged the outstanding achievements for 
membership with the organization. I I mentions that the Union of Designers I I 
considered factors such as "a high level as artists, but also have implementation in industrial products, 
their own unique developments." This statement is broad and is not accompanied by any supporting 
evidence regarding the Union of Designers! I or its membership requirements, such its 
constitution or bylaws, which may contain information regarding the process for becoming a member, 
the selection criteria, and the qualifications required for the reviewers of the selection committee. 
In addition, regarding the Petitioner's membership in the Synchronized Swimming Federation, 
I lunion of Artists, Union of Designers, and I !Union of Designers, the record does not 
contain documentation establishing the Petitioner's membership in any of those organizations or their 
official membership criteria. A letter from thel I Synchronized Swimming Federation to the 
Acting Mayor of the City I I dated 2013, requesting "free usage" of a premises "as the creative 
workshop of [the Petitioner] in the name of the regional non-governmental organization! I 
Union of Artists," states that the Petitioner "has been making costumes for the synchronized swimming 
national teaml .... __ ____.t' but does not confirm her membership in either organization. Thus, regarding 
the aforementioned organizations, the Petitioner has not submitted the primary initial evidence 
required to meet this criterion. 
Further, the Petitioner previously claimed to meet this criterion based her work as a costume designer 
for Olympic athletes. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that because "an Olympic-level costume 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence , 
https://www.uscis .gov/policy-manual /volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the Nationa l Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
3 
designer's work is one of the components of success for the athlete or team . . .. the costume designer 
becomes a member of the team in [the] same way as an Olympic coach or a choreographer would." 
As an example, she relates that her work requires her "to meet and design sketches with the athletes, 
attend their training, consider the music that will be used in the performance, etc." She claims, 
therefore, that selection of her work by Olympic "coaches and athletes who can test first hand the 
designers expertise" constitutes "team membership." However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
being selected to design costumes by individual Olympic athletes and coaches conveyed membership 
in an association consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner maintains that this evidence should also be considered as comparable 
evidence. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria 
do not readily apply to her occupation. 3 A petitioner should explain why she has not submitted 
evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), as well as 
why the evidence she has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 4 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the membership criterion is not applicable to her occupation. 
General assertions that any of the ten objective criteria do not readily apply to an occupation are not 
probative and should be discounted. 5 Here, the Petitioner did not show why she cannot offer evidence 
that meets at least three criteria. The fact that the Petitioner provided documentation that does not 
meet at least three criteria is not evidence that a fashion designer could not do so. In fact, as indicated 
above, the Petitioner claims to meet six other criteria. Further, the Petitioner did not explain why the 
other criteria, such as judging and original contributions, do not apply to her occupation. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she fulfills this criterion, including through 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
As a preliminary matter, the record contains an interview with the Petitioner from .... I--~-- ..... 
The record reflects that this was published in 2020, subsequent to the filing of the petition. The 
Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication . 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). As 
this article cannot establish the Petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing, we need not evaluate 
whether it otherwise satisfies the regulatory requirements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner also provided several articles that contain photographs of the Petitioner's synchronized 
swimmin or fi ure skatin costumes includin articles from Cosmopolitan.com dated 2018 titled 
--------------------- Thedailybeast.com dated 2012 titlede:J 
_________________ ' and from Nickvemeos.blogspot.com. However, these 
articles do not mention the Petitioner and therefore are not about her. Articles that are not about the 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis .gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
4 
petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ 
at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008)(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
In addition, the article from Nickvemeos.blogspot.com is missing the date of publication. 
Additional articles mention the Petitioner by name but are not about her relating to her work. For 
instance, the record contains a screenshot of art of an article dated 1997 from the rint publication 
titled The article, 
which is in the _-,--_..,...,..' section of the publication, rovides that the Petitioner's design company 
presented a collection of bathing suits at the inl I In interview dated 2000 
froml !figure skater ______ ..... mentions that her costumes are made by the 
Petitioner. Similarl,Y, in an interview dated 2015 from! I, synchronized swimmer 
I fstates that the Petitioner has ber her prsonal designer for several years for solo 
and duet performances. An article dated 2003 from quotes the Petitioner, among others, in a 
discussion of fashion trends in different sports over many decades. The Petitioner discusses some 
recent figure skating costume design challenges and successes. As mentioned previously, the 
aforementioned articles are not about the Petitioner, but are about the presentation of the Petitioner's 
swimwear collection, fashion trends in sports, and the athletes! I and I I I I As previously discussed, articles that are not about the Petitioner do not meet this regulatory 
criterion. In addition, the article from! I does not include the author of the material. 
Moreover, the record contains two articles about the Petitioner related to her fashion design work dated 
2017. In those articles, from and I lthe Petitioner discusses her costume design career 
as part of a team at the "'-r----..---~ House of Fashion and highlights with individual athletes. 
However, the article from.__ __ ....,does not include the author of the material. 
Further, the Petitioner did not provide any supporting evidence, at the time of filing or in response to 
the Director 's request for evidence (RFE), to establish that any of the aforementioned publications 
qualify as a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 6 The purpose of the RFE 
is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been 
established. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(8). In this case, the Director advised the Petitioner in the RFE that 
additional documentary evidence would be needed to establish that any of the submitted articles satisfy 
the requirement that the material be published in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. Specifically, the Director advised that such evidence could include the circulation (on­
line and/or in print) for the publications in which the material appeared and the intended audience of 
the publication. 
The Petitioner did not acknowledge this request or submit the requested evidence in response to the 
RFE, but now submits evidence pertaining to the circulation of Cosmopolitan.com and 
Thedailybeast.com. When, as here, the record shows that a petitioner was put on notice of an 
evidentiary deficiency and was given an opportunity to address that deficiency, we will not accept 
evidence regarding that deficiency when offered for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Matter of 
Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). Similarly, 
6 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2) , https://www.uscis .gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (instructing that 
evidence of published material in professional or major trade publication or in other major media publications should 
establish that the circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended 
audience of the publication) . 
5 
on appeal the Petitioner submits a portion of an article dated 1997 from Marie Clarel ~itled D I !' that contains a photograph of a swimsuit with a caption identifying the Petitioner as 
its designer and its price. This article is primarily about "what to wear, how to be protected from the 
sunlight, where to spend a vacation," and only briefly mentions the Petitioner. The author of the 
material was not identified. There is no documentary evidence showing the distribution of Marie 
Clare I !relative to other industry publications to demonstrate that the magazine qualifies as a 
major media . Regardless, as the Petitioner had the opportunity to submit the 1997 Marie Clare I I 
article in response to the Director 's RFE we will not consider this evidence offered for the first time 
on appeal. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that the fact that her costume designs have appeared in fashion magazines 
and broadcasts of Olympic games is comparable to the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). As previously discussed, the Petitioner did not show that at least three of the listed 
criteria do not readily apply to her occupation, she did not explain why she has not submitted evidence 
that would satisfy at least three of the criteria, and she did not establish why the evidence she has 
included is truly comparable to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Therefore , the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that she may use comparable evidence to demonstrate her eligibility. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she fulfills this criterion, including 
through the submission of comparable evidence. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification 
is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Within her response to the Director's RFE the Petitioner submitted a letter from._ _______ _, 
of the inaugural 2020c=] Skating Awards, who states that the Petitioner "was invited by the 
organizing committee as a consultant and a member of the panel tasked with selecting initial 
contestants in 2019 to 2020" for the "Best Costume" category. He asserts that she is qualified for this 
position "as a leading expert in this field, whose costumes for many years have been ... highly 
appreciated by judges and experts .... " At the outset.I l's letter indicates that the Petitioner 
"was tasked with selecting initial contestants in 2019 to 2020." The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and 
continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). As she filed his petition in June 2018, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any judging she performed for the 2020c=] Skating Awards 
occurred prior to or at the time of her initial filing. 
Notwith standing the above, in order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that she has not only 
been invited to judge the work of others, but also that she actually participated in the judging of the 
work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. 7 Heref the 
1
1etter does not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner actually completed any judging tasks for the 2020 Skating Awards . 8 In addition, 
the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence establishing that she, in fact, performed as a 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov /policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
8 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2) , https://www.uscis.gov /policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing an 
example of peer reviewing for a scholarly journal, as evidenced by a request from the journal to the alien to do the review, 
accompanied by proof that the alien actually completed the review). 
6 
judge for the 2020c=] Skating Awards, including showing how many or which contestants she 
reviewed, and how many or which initial contestants she selected for the 2020c=] Skating A wards 
"Best Costume" category. Further, we note that the statement does not bear the letterhead of the 
contest's company or the company's contact information. 
On appeal, the Petitioner 
7
rovides a letter from~ _________ _. ofl I Children's 
Football LeagueJ~ __ _.who states he has known the Petitioner since 1989, "when she worked at 
the Sportswear Models House and I headed the sports department in .. .I I' 
He provides that "when we had the idea to revive the International I I Fair, we invited 
[the Petitioner] to the organizing committee of the fair." He asserts that the Petitioner "was responsible 
for the region of1 l and was also a member of the jury of the 
competition for young fashion designers (regional inl ~ and finals, which took 
place irJ land also was a member of the jury of the I beauty contest I I I I' He farther claims that "[a]fter the advertising campaign 'Prologue' we continued our 
cooperation with [the Petitioner] and invited her to our other events as a member of the jury of beauty 
contests and fashion designers' contests." 
Merely submitting a statement asserting that the Petitioner has served as a judge of the work of others 
without evidence showing when and who she jud ed and their field of specification is insufficient to 
establish eligibility for this criterion. For instance, s letter does not indicate when, in fact, 
the Petitioner performed as a judge for in the Inter Fair's regional and final 
competitions for young fashion designers, and the ~--_.beauty contest 1 t The 
record also does not show, for instance, how many or which re ional and final oung fashion designers 
whose work she reviewed and selected for the International Fair or the names and 
the specific assessments of the beauty contestants she evaluated for the ~-----~ contest. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). In this instance, the 
record does not include supporting documentation demonstrating the Petitioner's participation as a 
judge for any of the aforementioned contests. Finall , on a eal, the Petitioner submits an article 
dated 2017 from titled that quotes the Petitioner, 
fashion historian.__ __ ....,... ____ _. and others expressing largely unfavorable opinions after the 
official presentation of the~--~national team's Olympic uniforms. The article does not establish, 
however, that the Petitioner performed a role in judging the designs for the uniforms before their 
official presentation to the public. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that she participated as a judge of the 
work of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to meet the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 9 For 
9 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2). https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (finding that 
7 
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 in the field. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of support discussing her work and documentary evidence of her 
fashion design work for various clients. 1° For instance,.__ _____ ____..,. a fashion designer who 
indicates she has consulted with the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner "has her own style that many 
designers tried (but (ailed) T copy.".__~ ____ ____..,. a fashion designer and colleague of the 
Petitioner's from the Fashion Academy, provides that the Petitioner's "costumes sparkled on 
Olympic champions of Figure Skating and Synchronized Swimmers." I I a fashion 
designer and colleague of the Petitioner's from the Textile Institute I I calls the Petitioner 
"an incredible pattern maker" whose "artistry in costume design elevates her work to the level of Art, 
especially her hand dyed pieces." While the above letters compliment the Petitioner on the quality of 
her work, the record does not show how the Petitioner's costume design had a majorly significant 
impact in the field, has significantly influenced the work of other designers, or otherwise equates to an 
original artistic contribution of major significance in the field. 
In addition, in a joint letter, pair skaters! I an~~-----~~ indicate that they met the 
Petitioner as performing soloists forl ts All Stars Ice Theater for which the Petitioner 
was the set designer and costume designer. They indicate that the Petitioner subsequently designed 
the costumes in which they won a.__ ______ ..... Championship. I J a synchronized 
swim coach inl lstates that she has known the Petitioner for twenty years, and that her team has 
used the Petitioner's "incredible art designs in our swimming costumes" in three Olympic Games. She 
asserts that the Petitioner's "amazing talent highly contributed and upgraded our presentation." 
.__ _____ _. an Olympid I champion who has known the Petitioner since childhood, 
asserts that the Petitioner's costume designs helpe~ I to win Gold Medals in the 
c=]Olympic Games. The record does not establish, however, how the Petitioner's costume designs 
are considered an original contribution of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than perhaps 
impacting the artistic scores of the athletes for whom the Petitioner designed costumes. The record 
does not demonstrate sufficiently that her original work for her clients constitutes original 
contributions of major significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that a petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather 
than limited to a single client or company. 
Moreover,! I an Olympic and world figure skating champion, indicates that she has 
known the Petitioner since childhood and that tJe Petitioner designed her costumes at the junior and 
professional level, including for herl victories at thel I Olympic Games. She 
asserts "the whole world recognized our unique style in costumes, which the Petitioner] created for 
us, our style determined the fashion in figure skating for a decade." .__ ____ ~does not provide 
specific examples of how the Petitioner's costume designs have significantly impacted the field or 
otherwise constitute original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
although funded and published work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of 
major significance). 
10 While we discuss only a sampling ofletters here, we have reviewed each one in its entirety. 
8 
Further,! I a formerl I of thel I synchronized Swimming 
Committee, indicates that he has known the Petitioner since 1992, and that she has designed 
synchronized swimming costumes for the.__ ______ ____. national teams. He states that the 
Petitioner "has done a lot to promote our sport, working with athletes from many countries of the 
world." I I does not provide specific examples of how the original fashion designs by the 
Petitioner have significantly impacted others in her field or otherwise constitute original artistic 
contributions of "major significance" in fashion design. 
The record also contains a letter from.__ ______ _,, a coach ofthd I Synchronized 
Swimming Team, who provides that "for many f:ears, [the Petitioner] has been a leading designer of 
the performance outfits for thel . Synchronized Swimming team" which "dictates the 
fashion for the sport." We note thatl Is statement does not bear the letterhead of the 
I !Synchronized Swimming Team, or the team's contact information. Regardlessc=] 
I I does not specify which of the Petitioner's designs equate to original contributions of 
major significance in the field. The documentation submitted does not demonstrate that her specific 
work for thel I Synchronized Swimming team equates to original contributions of 
major significance in the field. As previously discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that a petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the 
field" rather than limited to a single client or company. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter froml I thel I o i...r----,.._ __ __J 
who indicates he has known the petitioner since their collaboration in 1992 on th All Stars 
theatrical ice ballet, for which the Petitioner was the costume and set designer. .__ ___ __, comments 
on the Petitioner's work for that theater production, but he does not provide specific examples of how 
the costume or set designs from the event have significantly impacted the field at large or otherwise 
constitute original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. He provides that "[t]he 
video version of the performance ... is still sold worldwide." In addition, the record contains 
screenshots from an unidentified librry websre showing that the 1999 videorecording 0~ I 
'-----------' featuring the All Stars with set designs by the Petitioner is available. 
However, the documentation submitted does not show that the Petitioner's design work from that ice 
production has impacted the field at a level indicative of an original artistic contribution of "major 
significance" in the design field. 
The opinions of the Petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered above. 
The preceding references discuss their collaborations with the Petitioner and her skills as a costume 
designer and set designer, but they do not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's original 
work equates to original contributions of "major significance" in the field. Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. Letters that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic language do not add 
value and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this 
criterion. 11 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Absent detailed examples of how the Petitioner's 
design work has been of major significance in the field, the reference letters do not sufficiently 
establish that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. 
11 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2). https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
9 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that fashion designer Vera Wang is among the "famous names" in her 
field of expertise. The Petitioner provides that Ms. Wang "was inducted into the U.S. Figure Skating 
Hall of Fame for her design/artistic contributions to the sport" and "designed far less costumes for 
Olympic athletes (and medal winners) than [the Petitioner.]" Therefore, the Petitioner asserts that "if 
Ms. Wang's contributions to the sport and art of costume design is significant enough to warrant 
induction into a Hall of Fame, [the Petitioner's] contributions are even more significant in light of her 
experience." However, the Petitioner does not provide specific examples of how her costume designs 
have impacted the field in the same manner as Ms. Wang, the individual to whom the Petitioner 
compares herself, or were otherwise majorly significant to the field. For example, the submitted 
documentation does not show the extent of the Petitioner's influence on other artists in the field or that 
the field has somehow changed as a result of her original work. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the Petitioner must demonstrate her 
authorship of "scholarly" articles. Outside of the academic arena, a scholarly article should be written 
for "learned" persons in the field. "Learned" is defined as having or demonstrating profound 
knowledge or scholarship. 12 Evidence of scholarly articles published in professional or major trade 
publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line or in 
print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and identify who the intended audience of the 
publication is.13 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts for the first time that she satisfies this criterion based on an article 
dated 1995 published in the print magazine I I She asserts that "[g]iven the celebrity of its 
creator, the publication would have been a major media at the time and as such, [the Petitioner's] 
article in the same should be treated as authorship of an article in her field" under this criterion. 
First, we note that the article translation does not identify the Petitioner as the author. In addition, the 
Petitioner did not assert or establish the scholarly nature of the published article. The article does not 
appear to qualify as scholarly, in that it is a popular article offering general information on the Soviet 
and Russian fashion design industry, rather than an article written in a technical manner that presumes 
considerable knowledge of fashion design terminology. In addition, the limited information about the 
publication contained on its cover indicates its subject matter includes "All the stars" in "Music -
Cinema - Fashion - Theater - Literature - Art - Media - Night Life," with such topics as I I 
.__ ________ ___,.__ _______ __.'"Confession," and "Who Does the Champion Sleep 
With?" Thus, the publication indicates its articles are intended to be accessible to the general public. 
The evidence, therefore, does not establish that the intended audience of the Petitioner's articles is 
"learned persons" in the field. Moreover, the Petitioner has not addressed the other element of this 
12 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2). https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
13 Id. 
10 
criterion by submitting evidence to establish thatl I is a professional or other trade 
publication, or that it has the circulation to be considered a major medium. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that this evidence meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner does not satisfy the criteria relating to membership, published material, 
judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. Although she claims eligibility for one 
additional criterion on appeal, relating to leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not reach this additional ground. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial 
evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 14 
Accordingly, 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 finding that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and 
recognition required for the classification sought. 
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. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
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 has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
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. 
14 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
11