dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-G-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 3, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a fashion stylist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized award or met 
the requirements of at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence 1 and asserts that he meets four evidentiary 
criteria in addition to the one acknowledged in the Director's decision. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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. 
1 We received additional evidence related to this appeal on April 4, 2019, after adjudication but prior to the issuance of 
this decision. We have reviewed this evidence and determined that it does not affect the Petitioner's eligibility or alter our 
decision. 
Matter of J-G-S-
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). 
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). 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 of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(b)(3) states the following regarding the translation of 
foreign-language documents: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall 
be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified 
as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent 
to translate from the foreign language into English. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner met one of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x), relating to his service as a judge of the work of others in his field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that he also meets four additional evidentiary criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, 
we find that the Petitioner has not established that he qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien'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) 
To qualify under this criterion, the material must be about the Petitioner and his work as a fashion 
stylist, and be published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. In his 
2 
.
Matter of J-G-S-
decision, the Director acknowledged the material about the Petitioner and his work which appeared in 
the 1997 edition of Elle Quebec, but found that it was not accompanied by a properly certified 
translation from French to English per 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(b)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner submits an 
unsigned letter from a translator, which does not comply with the regulation's requirement of a 
certification. In addition, we note that the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish that Elle 
Quebec qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major media, despite the 
Director's request. Accordingly, we find that he has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from , who states that he is a former creative 
director of the University. writes that the 
Petitioner served as a mentor and judge for students participating in the program and annual fashion 
show from 2012 to 2015. In his decision, the Director found this evidence to be sufficient to meet this 
criterion. 
Upon review, however, we note that it is not apparent from: 's letter whether the Petitioner 
was invited to serve as a judge or jury panel member to award prizes for the events in those 
years, or whether his participation in the program was strictly as a mentor involved evaluating the 
students' work. As the plain language of this criterion requires evidence of the Petitioner's 
"participation ... as a judge," evidence of working as a mentor who evaluates students as a part of that 
role does not meet this requirement. In addition, the record does not include documentary evidence 
to corroborate 's letter regarding the Petitioner's role. 2 Depending on the specificity, 
detail, and credibility of a letter, USCIS may give the document more or less persuasive weight in a 
proceeding. The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be 
disregarded simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 
(BIA 2000) ( citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&NDec. 1136 (BIA 1998). Here, the record lacks 
specificity and detail of the Petitioner's role with the program. Accordingly, we find that 
this evidence does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's qualification under this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, 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 the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a Petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
2 We have reviewed the 201 4 and 2015 programs for the event, available at 
https://design . and note that the Petitioner is not listed as a jury member or mentioned in 
any other capacity. To the extent that this informat ion is inconsistent with s letter, this inconsiste ncy should 
be resolved in any future filing in this matter. 
3 
.
Matter of J-G-S-
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. 
The Petitioner points to reference letters in the record and asserts that they support his original 
contributions to the fashion publication field "which have taken hold in most of the industry." The 
letters include a different letter from , who currently serves as CEO of 
_ credits the Petitioner for launching in 2009, 
and states that he "invented a new advertising dimension and contributed to new media platforms" and 
"recognized and perfected the process of content creation and dissemination through essentially free, 
previously underused, consumer driven media platforms." However, the record does not include 
documentary evidence providing information about , the Petitioner's involvement with 
it, or any impact the Petitioner's role and actions may have had on other fashion publications. Mr. 
does state that the Petitioner's insight or model has influenced his work in media creation and 
has introduced him to "a myriad of talent," but this does not support his assertion that it has made a 
contribution to the fashion publication industry as a whole. 
Another reference letter highlighted by the Petitioner on appeal was written by Editor­
in-Chief of -~ states that the Petitioner served as the magazine's U.S. fashion 
editor beginning in 2007, and through this role "established a signature to the brand that still 
remains." While this evidence indicates that he served a role with this magazine, it does not establish 
that the Petitioner's work rose to the level of an original artistic or business-related contribution of 
major significance to the overall field. Therefore, after review of these letters and others in the record, 
we find that they do not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 3 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
Several tear sheets were submitted which the Petitioner asserts are evidence of the display of his work 
in artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Director found that since the Petitioner "has not created 
tangible pieces of art" as a visual artist, this evidence does not show that he could qualify under this 
criterion. Whether or not the work of a fashion stylist can be considered to be that of a visual artist, 
we do not agree that the plain language of the regulation limits qualification under this criterion to 
only visual artists. However, the Petitioner has not established that this evidence represents a display 
of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. First, not all of the tear-sheets or copies submitted 
include the Petitioner's name and identify him as having a role in their creation. Absent evidence that 
the Petitioner was credited for work, we cannot assume that these tear-sheets show his work. In 
addition, several of the tear-sheets do not include the name of the publication or other medium or 
venue in which the photos appeared. In those cases, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that 
the context in which the work was displayed qualifies as an artistic exhibition or showcase. 
The tear-sheets which do identify the publication in which they appeared and credit the Petitioner with 
either "realisation" or as a fashion editor were published in Be and Numero Tokyo. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the work of fashion stylists is most often displayed in print and digital media. 
However, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish that the magazines in which his work 
3 While we do not mention all of the submitted reference letters in this decision , we have reviewed all of them. 
4 
.
Matter of J-G-S-
was displayed can be considered to be artistic exhibitions or showcases as required under this criterion, 
as opposed to commercial media. As such, he has not established that this evidence meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204. 5(h)(3)(viii) 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through 
the role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the Petitioner's impact on the 
organization or the establishment's activities. The Petitioner's performance in this role should establish 
whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. 
Although the Director did not consider the Petitioner's qualification under this criterion in his decision, 
the Petitioner indicated in response to the Director's RFE that he has played a leading role in the career 
of several artists. Again on appeal, the Petitioner refers to letters from three performers, who indicate 
that he has advised them on wardrobe selections for concerts, videos and public appearances. 
However, this criterion focuses on roles played for "organizations or establishments," not individuals. 
With regard to these letters, the Petitioner has not identified organizations or establishments for which 
he has served a leading or critical role. 
A fourth letter written by Inc. indicates that as artistic 
director for the company, the Petitioner has played the critical role of editing the archives of his work, 
curating exhibits, and assisting in the curating of a book. writes that "In large measure 
I attribute responsibility for the trajectory of my professional reputation and unique brand to [the 
Petitioner's] creative decisions," and asserts that his company "has achieved international acclaim, 
widespread professional recognition and commercial success." However, the record does not include 
evidence to support 's assertions regarding the status and renown of his company, or 
which would corroborate his claims about any success the company has enjoyed that is attributable to 
the Petitioner. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received a major, internationally recognized award 
or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final merits 
analysis 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 appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec . 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
5 
Matter of J-G-S-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-G-S-, ID# 3009236 (AAO May 3, 2019)